THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE 


FORTHCOMING 
THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE 

PART   CONCERNING    THE    RESTRICTION    OF    SLAVERY 

It  will  contain  chapters  on  the  Colonies,  the  Repub 
lic,  the  Constitution,  Early  Parties  and  Sectional 
Divisions,  the  Federal  Judiciary  and  the  States,  and 
a  complete  history  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 


THE 


SECTIONAL  S 


ECTIONAL    OTRUGGLE 


AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  TROUBLES  BETWEEN 

THE   NORTH   AND   THE    SOUTH,   FROM 

THE     EARLIEST    TIMES    TO     THE 

CLOSE  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


FIRST  PERIOD 

ENDING  WITH  THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833.      PART  CONCERNING 
THE   EARLY  TARIFFS  AND  NULLIFICATION 


BY 

CICERO  W.  HARRIS 


PHILADELPHIA  AND  LONDON 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT    COMPANY 
1902 


f '  SE 


COPYRIGHT,  1902 

BY 
CICERO  W.  HARRIS 

Published  Febraary,  1902 


ELECTROTYPED   AND    PRINTED    BY    J.    B.    LIPP1NCOTT    COMPANY,    PHILADELPHIA,    U.S., 


IN   MEMORY 

OF 

MY  MOTHER 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

PREFACES **>  13 

CHAPTER    I. 
TRANSITION 

CHAPTER    II. 
THE  TARIFF— 1789-1820 33 

CHAPTER    III. 
THE  TARIFF— 1820-1828 73 

CHAPTER    IV. 
THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND  OTHER  EVENTS 146 

CHAPTER    V. 
NULLIFICATION  AND  THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833 230 


INDEX  .  335 


GENERAL  PREFACE. 


A  FULL-LENGTH  view  of  the  long  political  and  constitu 
tional  struggle  between  the  North  and  the  South  is  a 
desideratum  in  American  history.  The  time  has  perhaps 
come  when  the  more  thoughtful  people  of  both  sections 
are  ready  to  receive  the  story  of  the  first  part  of  that  great 
conflict  of  ideas.  The  qualifications  of  aA  historian  of 
a  civil  contest  having  many  phases  and  stretching  over  a 
vast  period  are  the  high  qualifications  of  candor,  impar 
tiality,  calmness,  courage,  love  of  truth  for  its  own  sake, 
ability  to  see  facts  from  all  sides,  and  skill  and  power  to 
express  them  in  their  proper  connection  with  ease,  dignity, 
clearness,  precision,  and  force.  Feeling  the  lack  of  some 
of  these  qualifications,  but  imbued  with  a  deep  sense  of 
their  value  and  of  the  importance  of  consecration  in  such 
a  work,  I  have  devoted  my  spare  time  from  professional 
labor  for  many  years  to  the  collection  of  materials  and  the 
composition  therefrom  of  an  elaborate  account  of  the  sec 
tional  troubles  in  this  country  from  a  time  anterior  to  the 
formation  of  the  present  governments  to  the  adoption  of 
the  tariff  compromise  of  1833.  This  is  equivalent  to 
making  a  natural  division  of  the  sectional  struggle  into 
three  parts:  1.  That  from  1787,  or  earlier,  to  1833.  2. 
That  from  1833  to  1850,  the  era  of  the  second  great  slavery 
compromise  after  the  inauguration  of  the  present  Federal 
government,  that  of  1820  being  the  first.  3.  That  from 
the  compromise  of  1850  to  the  close  of  the  Civil  War. 
Some  materials  for  a  history  of  the  second  period  have 
been  accumulated ;  but  that  is  an  independent  work.  If 
that  work  is  never  completed,  the  volumes  already  prepared 
will  have  such  value  as  they  may  be  found  to  have  without 


10  GENERAL  PREFACE. 

regard  to  the  volumes  which,  if  ever  published,  will  tell 
the  story  of  the  later  periods  of  the  mighty  conflict. 

The  history  of  the  relations  between  the  North  and  the 
South  is  varied  in  details  and  profoundly  interesting.  No 
chapters  of  political  history  have  a  greater  charm  for  stu 
dents  of  government,  and  certainly  to  the  American  nothing 
in  human  history  yields  so  rich  a  fruitage.  I  have  thought 
that  a  work  separated  from  the  general  political  history  of 
the  United  States  and  devoted  exclusively  to  this  special 
field  would  not  he  without  utility.  Such  a  work,  written 
in  a  plain  style  and  adapted  to  popular  wants,  but  with  a 
critical  purpose, — a  work  at  once  full  in  the  major  essen 
tials  and  succinct  in  the  minor, — I  have  endeavored  to  con 
struct,  with  infinite  care  as  to  data  and  great  catholicity  in 
the  handling  of  vexed  questions.  The  imposing  collection 
of  books,  pamphlets,  documents,  periodicals,  and  news 
papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  including  the  debates 
and  journals  of  Congress,  the  rep'orts  and  digests  of  de 
cisions  in  the  United  States  courts,  and  State  histories, 
legislative  proceedings,  etc.,  has  been  drawn  upon  for 
original  sources  of  information,  very  little  use  having  been 
made  of  the  general  histories  of  the  republic,  except  to 
supply  such  materials  as  could  not  otherwise  be  obtained. 
The  general  plan  of  the  work  is  to  treat  events  in  classes, 
topically,  as  far  as  practicable,  but  there  is  a  sequence  in 
the  events  of  each  subdivision.  The  book,  as  first  prepared 
for  publication,  opens  with  some  account  of  the  colonies, — 
their  origin,  their  mental  and  moral  characteristics,  their 
religion,  their  polity,  their  civilization,  their  differences 
from,  as  well  as  their  likenesses  to,  each  other.  Following 
are  a  history  of  the  origin  of  the  republic  of  republics, 
including  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States;  a  critical  review  of  early  parties;  a  summary  ac 
count  of  early  movements  for  disintegrating  the  Union ;  a 
chapter  on  slavery  North  and  South  before  1820 ;  several 
chapters  on  the  great  compromise  of  that  year,  agreed  to 
finally  in  1821 ;  the  relations  of  the  Federal  judiciary  with 
the  individual  States;  the  campaigns  of  1824  arid  1828; 


GENERAL  PREFACE.  11 

and,  finally,  the  tariff  legislation  from  1789  to  the  act  of 
1833,  with  the  climax  of  nullification.  The  debate  of  1830 
and  the  still  greater  debate  of  1833  in  the  Senate  are  stated 
more  fully,  perhaps,  than  elsewhere  in  any  single  volume 
yet  issued.  All  the  side  lights  in  these  and  other  sectional 
discussions  that  are  obtainable  are  furnished  at  great  pains 
of  search  and  collocation.  The  Virginia  anti-slavery  dis 
cussions  and  the  Nat  Turner  insurrection  figure  in  the 
story.  Such  characters  as  George  Mason,  Roger  Sherman, 
James  Wilson,  William  Lowndes,  and  Robert  Y.  Hayne, 
who  have  seldom  received  their  dues  from  historians,  are 
made  to  stand  out  on  the  canvas,  while  the  parts  played  in 
the  history  of  the  country  by  Madison,  Hamilton,  Jackson, 
and  Webster  are  not  permitted  to  dwarf  the  equally  im 
portant  parts  taken  by  some  of  the  above  and  by  Henry 
Clay,  the  great  pacificator. 

The  aids  to  the  reader  are  copious  references  to  authori 
ties,  necessary  explanations  in  foot-notes,  and  a  marginal 
index  of  dates  and  topics.  The  entire  work  has  been 
rewritten, — some  chapters  several  times, — and  all  votes  in 
Congress  have  been  verified  by  comparison  of  the  Annals 
or  Register  of  Debates  with  the  Journals. 


PREFACE  TO  THE   PRESENT  VOLUME. 


THE  publication  of  the  History  of  the  First  Period  of 
the  Sectional  Struggle  has  been  attended  with  so  much 
difficulty  the  author  concludes  that  it  would  be  wiser  to 
issue  the  second  or  shorter  part  of  the  narrative  separately, 
and  to  defer  until  another  time  the  publication  of  the 
rather  more  interesting  story  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
and  preceding  events.  The  portion  now  published  is  prob 
ably  not  without  interest  to  students  of  our  early  politics, 
especially  to  students  of  our  economic  history.  It  includes 
a  pretty  full  account  of  the  tariff  legislation  and  attempted 
legislation  from  1789  to  1833,  as  well  as  of  the  memorable 
debates  of  1830-33. 

As  soon  as  possible  the  other  volume  covering  this  period 
will  be  published.  The  author  deeply  regrets  that  he  can 
not  send  out  the  complete  work  at  this  time. 


13 


A  HISTORY 


OF  THE 


SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE 


CHAPTER  I. 

TRANSITION. 

PARTIES  are  not  created  at  will,  but  are  the  slow  growth, 
out  of  wants,  hopes,  and  failures,  of  very  many  years  and 
efforts.  Not  to  go  further  back  in  the  line  of  parties  not  cre- 
causation  than  the  close  of  the  second  war  with  ated  at  wUL 
Great  Britain,  it  is  found  that  the  possibility  of  future  dis 
integration  and  agglutination  existed  in  the  circumstances 
of  the  country  and  the  state  of  the  public  mind.  By  no 
means  is  it  to  be  said  that  the  Whig  party  arose  from  the 
felt  want  of  some  provision  by  the  federal  government 
for  the  development  of  the  country's  great  resources.  Its 
origin  was  broader  than  that  want,  however 


strongly   felt   and    acutely   expressed    by  the    wMparty.  A 


statesmen   of  the  time,  many  of  whom  held    convenient 

.  starting-point. 

subsequently  other  views  than  those  then 
enounced.  But  it  may  be  convenient  to  start  here  in  quest 
of  the  original  principles  of  the  "Whig  party.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  he  who  more  than  any  other  man  was 
the  father  of  this  great  organization  was  a  State-rights 
Democrat,  that  many  of  those  who  acted  with  him  were 
likewise  Jeffersonians,  and  that  not  a  few  of  the  men  who 
afterwards  became  prominent  in  the  leadership  of  the  re- 

15 


16  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

organized  Democratic  party  had  been  nurtured  in  the  old 
ciay  an  original  Federal  party.  The  new  was  hardly  the  lineal 
Democrat.  Fed-  successor  of  the  Federal  party.  The  war  had 
new  Democratic  come  apparently  to  mark  the  line  between  the 
party.  ^  an(j  the  new  dispensations.  Back  of  that 

line  was  the  Revolution, — its  causes,  conduct,  aims;  its 
principles,  issues,  leaders.  Here  was  heroic  action,  partial 
synthesis.  The  freedom  of  the  people,  their  confederation, 
their  inward  unity  in  one  sense  and  their  outward  unity  in 
another, — these  were  to  be  achieved  and  maintained.  On 
New  aims  and  this  side  was  achievement  also,  but  it  was  the 
incentives.  achievement  chiefly  of  material  rather  than 
political  prosperity,  of  advancement  in  arts,  commerce, 
agriculture,  manufactures,  and,  above  all,  in  the  moral, 
spiritual,  and  intellectual  parts  of  the  national  life.  The 
line,  then  perhaps  hardly  discernible,  is  now  plainly  traced. 
The  close  of  the  contest  with  the  mother  country  had  given 
to  foreign  commerce  and  all  branches  of  industry  in  con 
nection  with  it  by  association  or  dependence  an  unnatural 
stimulus.  A  partial  paralysis  of  trade  had  followed.  It 
was  seen  then  that  the  United  States  must  rely  upon  them 
selves  for  many  if  not  most  of  the  articles  it  had  been  the 
custom  to  import  from  England  and  other  lands.  Hence 
the  tariff  of  1816,  which,  with  the  cognate  subjects  of  in 
ternal  improvement  and  the  sale  and  settlement  of  the 
public  lands,  will  be  treated  in  further  and  separate  chap 
ters.  Hence  the  recommendations  of  Monroe  and  Calhoun 
and  all  the  discussion  of  the  time  in  relation  to  roads, 
canals,  harbors,  and  other  objects  upon  which  governmental 
energy  was  expended. 

The  Missouri  debates  had  both  retarded  the  growth  of 
HOW  the  Mis-    tne  new  politics  and  advanced  it:    retarded, 

souri  debates  because  they  absorbed  public  attention;  ad- 
had  affected 

public  senti-  vanced,  because  they  sowed  distrust  between 
the  sections  and  stimulated  the  latent  feeling 
in  the  North  in  behalf  of  the  general  government  as  op 
posed  to  the  State  governments.  In  that  section  there  was 
not  always,  perhaps,  more  of  the  spirit  of  consolidation 


TRANSITION.  17 

than  there  was  at  the  South,  but  it  was  more  conspicuous 
at  certain  times,  and  was  the  outgrowth  of  peculiar  and 
local  circumstances.  To  oppose  a  federal  administration 
which  embarrassed  their  commerce  the  New  The  North  and 
Englanders  had  gone  almost  as  far  as  logical  consolidation, 
consistency  demanded  in  advocacy  of  State  rights.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  was  well  known  that  in  the  earlier  days 
of  the  republic  the  leaders  of  that  public  opinion  which 
was  favorable  to  more  or  less  of  centralization  resided  in  the 
North  and  united  with  the  Federal  party.  The  slavery 
issue  presented  in  the  late  controversy  had  drawn  over  to 
the  opposition  a  large  number  of  northern  Republicans,  or, 
as  they  began  to  be  called,  Democrats.  The  brainiest  men 
in  the  Congress  who  championed  the  restriction  upon  the 
new  State  were  life-long  Federalists,  however ;  for  it  was 
such  debaters  as  King,  Otis,  and  Sergeant  who  furnished 
the  arguments  combated  by  the  friends  of  Missouri.  These 
northern  leaders  appreciated  the  fact  that  it  was  not  pos 
sible  after  the  compromise  to  frame  a  party  on  the  abolition 
issue  straight  out  or  on  any  derivative  or  moderate  prin 
ciple  of  emancipation.  But  they  recognized  the  power  of 
the  sentiment  in  the  country,  strong  in  the  North  and  not 
contemptible  in  the  South,  which  called  for  a  The  American 
distinctively  American  system  of  industry.  By  industrial  sys- 
fostering  this  sentiment  they  hoped  to  control 
public  affairs  as  well  as  build  up  a  physical  power  in  the 
North  which  should  be  invincible  far  into  the  future.  Not 
quite  yet  was  the  commercial  influence  of  the  old  towns 
ready  to  accept  the  good  held  up  to  its  view.  For  a  few 
years  longer  was  this  ponderous  influence  to  be  thrown 
into  the  scale  against  protection  by  legislation  of  the  vari 
ous  industries  which  it  was  feared  would  injure  the  im 
porters.  The  press,  ever  in  modern  times  and  among 
English  peoples  a  potent  factor  in  public  opinion,  was 
beginning  to  espouse  with  zeal  the  cause  of  manufactures. 
The  old  Aurora,  shorn  of  some  of  its  popularity,  but  still 
widely  read,  was  devoted  about  this  time  almost  exclu 
sively  to  the  championship  of  protection,  and  there  were 

2 


18  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

many  other  journals  which  labored  with  zeal  to  establish 

the  principle. 

The  germs  of  future  political  divisions  are  seen  also  in 

the  spirited  conflict  between  the  Washington  organ  of  the 
Federal  administration  and  the  Richmond  or- 
gan  of  the  State-rights  party.  For  several 


organs  of  the    years   alienation   had   existed,  but  now  there 

administration.     J  .  .  ,, 

was  open  hostility  on  various  themes.  All 
topics  were  handled  with  reference  to  the  fundamental 
nature  of  the  government,  the  origin  of  the  Constitution, 
its  construction  and  powers,  and  the  status  of  the  State 
governments  in  the  system,  the  character  of  sovereignty, 
and  the  definition  of  the  word  "  people"  in  a  federal  gov 
ernment.  The  National  Intelligencer  said  that  the  Constitu 
tion  was  not  formed  by  the  States,  but  by  the  people  of  the 
whole  country.  The  Enquirer  retorted  by  quotations  from 
the  Federalist  and  Madison's  speeches  before  the  Virginia 
convention.  The  Charleston  Patriot  contended  that  the 
Congress  might  do  everything  that  concerned  the  general 
welfare.  Indeed,  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  on  which 
this  idea  was  based  was  often  adduced  as  sufficient  for  all 
the  purposes  of  a  national  as  distinct  from  a  federal  gov 
ernment. 

The  next  President  is  ever  a  topic  of  interest  in  the 
United  States.  At  this  time  it  was  discussed  even  before 
Mr.  Monroe's  second  term  had  begun.  Hate  and  rancor, 

involved  chiefly  in  a  quarrel  of  personal  prefer- 

1823-24.  «J 

ences  and  having  as  yet  little  relation  to  any 
great  question  of  policy,  disturbed  the  public  tranquillity. 
The  candidates  were  at  first  Mr.  Adams  from  the  North, 
Presidential  Mr.  Crawford  and  Mr.  Calhoun  from  the  South, 

candidates.  and    Mr    C]ay   find    Qenera|    Jackson    from    the 

West.  Until  the  Crawford  party  made  the  fatal  blunder 
of  assuming  for  him  regularity  as  the  Republican  nominee 
by  a  Congressional  caucus,  that  gentleman  was  clearly 
stronger  than  any  other  candidate.  A  native  of  Virginia, 
the  first  State  of  the  South  ;  a  citizen  of  Georgia,  aspiring 
to  be  the  second  State  of  that  section;  adhering  more 


TRANSITION.  19 

closely,  perhaps,  than  either  of  his  rivals  to  the  original 
doctrines  of  the  State-rights  school;  of  massive  frame 
and  commanding  appearance ;  popular  in  arts  and  address ; 
a  shrewd  though  honorable  politician  ;  long  at  the  head  of 
the  important  treasury  department  of  the  executive  branch 
of  the  government,  his  ascendency  drew  upon  him  the 
hostility  of  all  the  factions  and  chieftainships.  To  him 
clung  much  of  that  old  party  Republicanism  which  con 
jured  in  the  names  of  Jefferson  and  Madison.  The  older 
leaders,  like  Mr.  Macon  and  John  Taylor,  of  Caroline,  were 
devoted  to  him.  The  younger  men  who  believed  in  the 
old  principles  in  their  entirety  also  supported  his  candi 
dature.  The  candidacy  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  dependent  on 
the  action  of  the  Pennsylvania  Republicans.  His  strongest 
friends  were  in  that  State  and  in  South  Carolina,  although 
he  was  not  without  ardent  following  in  New  England. 
He  was  of  Scotch-Irish  extraction,  had  family  and  personal 
ties  in  the  North,  and  had  been  graduated  from  Yale  Col 
lege.  The  youngest,  he  was  also  perhaps  the  most  ad 
vanced  of  the  five  in  his  views  on  the  subject  of  internal 
improvements.  Such  had  been  his  position,  certainly ;  and 
the  country  was  yet  to  learn  of  any  change  in  his  views. 
The  Western  candidates  were  as  diverse  in  traits  and 
talents  as  it  was  possible  for  them  to  be.  Clay,  the  more 
experienced  in  civil  life,  was  a  man  of  society,  an  orator 
of  distinction,  a  diplomatist.  Original  defects  in  education 
had  been  partly  covered  by  contact  with  men  of  refinement, 
by  a  keen  adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  and  by  such  read 
ing  as  he  had  time  for  in  the  midst  of  a  ceaseless  activity. 
His  manners  were  elegant,  and  usually  his  language  was 
correct.  Jackson  was  the  successful  soldier,  the  border 
politician.  He  had  not  thought  of  the  Presidency  until 
long  after  the  country  had  set  him  up  as  an  idol.1  But  he 
became  enamoured  of  the  thought  when  he  saw  that  there 
was  an  opportunity  for  the  military  hero.  Mr.  Clay's 

1  Parton's  Life  of  Jackson,  vol.  ii.  p.  354 ;    Letters  of  H.  M.  Brack- 
enridge,  p.  8. 


20  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

friends  had  been  secured  in  a  long  career  in  the  Congress, 
where,  if  anywhere,  the  brilliant  and  energetic  politician 
may  work  out  a  grand  destiny,  not  solely  by  public  meas 
ures,  but  also  by  social  converse  and  management.  Nothing 
had  been  neglected  by  Mr.  Clay  which  could  have  con 
tributed  to  his  fortunes.  It  is  invidious  to  draw  social  dis 
tinctions  in  a  democratic  country.  But  truth  requires  the 
statement  that,  so  far  as  there  were  social  lines  drawn  at 
this  time  in  politics,  the  candidacy  of  General  Jackson  was 
the  candidacy  of  the  element  which  had  not  been  dominant 
in  the  general  government,  but  which  was  restive  under 
restraint  and  determined  to  assume  direction.  Jackson 
himself  was  a  fair  type  of  this  middle  class.  Resolute,  firm 
to  imperiousness,  with  the  faults  of  illiteracy  and  the  virtues 
of  chivalry ;  a  hero,  with  baser  elements  intermixed ;  flash 
ing  out  in  sudden  passion,  but  never  losing  self-control; 
discretion,  although  obscured  frequently,  asserted  itself,  and 
the  mastery  of  intuitive  common  sense  was  even  greater 
than  that  of  fiery  courage.  He,  too,  was  a  Scotch-Irishman 
in  everything  except  the  accident  of  birth.  Mr.  Adams 
was  the  Northern  candidate.  At  that  time  no  other  man 
from  that  section  could  have  secured  any  considerable  sup 
port  ;  for  Rufus  King  was  the  only  other  conceivable  can 
didate,  and  he  was  out  of  the  question  by  reason  of  his 
unpopularity  in  the  South,  due  to  his  course  in  having  ad 
vocated  the  restriction  of  slavery.  Mr.  Adams  was  not  a 
popular  man.  The  coldness  of  his  general  manner,  his 
apparent  neglect  of  political  arts,  and,  above  all,  the  en 
mity  engendered  by  his  exposure  of  the  alleged  plots  of 
the  Essex  Junto  in  1808,  had  detracted  much  from  his 
chances  of  success.  On  the  other  hand,  his  culture,  mo 
rality,  ability,  and  public  training  seemed  to  mark  him  as 
a  worthy  successor  of  the  great  men  who  had  sat  in  the 
Presidential  chair.  Generally,  however,  his  candidature 
was  coldly  supported,  and  what  zeal  there  was  displayed 
was  the  result  of  sectional  pride  rather  than  personal 
choice. 

Toward  the  end  of  1823  the   nominations  were  well 


TRANSITION  21 

canvassed.  North  Carolina  and  Virginia  declined  to  ex 
press  through  the  legislature  any  opinion  on  the  propriety 
of  a  Congressional  caucus  to  nominate  candi-  The  nomina. 
dates  for  the  Presidency  and  Vice-Presidency,  tions  in  the 
The  legislatures  of  Tennessee  and  Maryland 
and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  South  Carolina  had 
denounced  the  plan  of  a  caucus.1  Indeed,  the  Tennessee 
legislature  had  nominated  General  Jackson.  Elected  to 
the  Senate  to  further  this  purpose  to  make  him  President, 
he  was  on  the  spot  where  all  his  great  rivals  were  in  high 
positions,  looking  closely  after  their  personal  interests. 
Mr.  Calhoun,  seeing  that  Jackson  had  more  friends  in 
Pennsylvania  than  himself,  withdrew  from  the  race  and 
was  soon  afterward  supported  for  the  Vice-Presidency. 
Eastern  preference  for  Mr.  Adams  w.as  shown  by  the  action 
of  the  Maine  and  Massachusetts  legislatures,  which  were 
soon  followed  by  those  of  other  New  England  States  and 
by  public  meetings  and  the  voice  of  the  press.  The  legis 
lature  of  Alabama  approved  by  resolution  the  nomination 
of  General  Jackson,  but  the  resolution  was  vetoed  by 
the  governor.  The  opposition  to  Congressional  caucuses 
had  been  steadily  growing  since  1816,  but  it  was  now  much 
stronger  from  the  fact  that  it  was  known  that  Mr.  Crawford 
had  more  friends  in  the  Congress  than  any  other  candidate. 
If  a  caucus  were  held,  Crawford  must  inevitably  be  the 
nominee.  Hence,  the  three  other  candidates  were  unan 
imous  in  their  rejection  of  a  caucus  nomination.  At  that 
time  a  general  convention  was  deemed  impracticable  on 
account  of  the  inconvenience  of  attendance.  There  were 
few  steamboats  and  no  railroads.  Many  portions  of  the 
country  were  as  remote  from  the  political  centres  as  if  they 
were  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  The  objec 
tions  to  the  Congressional  caucus,  which,  in  some  form  had 
been  the  mode  of  nominating  Presidential  tickets  since 
1800,  were  valid,  although  not  insuperable.  So  long  as 
there  was  a  real  division  of  the  country  into  parties,  and 

1  National  Intelligencer,  January  2,  3,  1824. 


22  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

only  the  very  greatest  men  aspired  to  the  first  office,  the 
caucus  would  work  as  well  at  least  as  any  mode  likely 
to  be  substituted  for  it.  The  members  were  as  little  dis 
posed  to  betray  the  trust  reposed  in  them  as  the  members 
of  the  State  legislatures,  and  were  far  more  competent, 
from  their  wider  range  of  observation,  to  select  men  of 
national  fame  and  fitness  for  the  position.  But  the  cau 
cus  had  its  faults  of  favoritism  and  inequality,  and  was 
doomed. 

On  the  14th  of  February,  after  an  ineffectual  attempt  by 
a  few  of  Crawford's  partisans  to  postpone  the  caucus,  a 
The  Crawford  conference  of  his  friends  in  Congress  was  held 
conference.  ^t  the  Capitol.  Sixty-six  persons  were  present, 

Last  of  the  Con-  r  J  ' 

gressionai  cau-  and  two  others  were  represented  by  proxy.  It 
cuses.  was  decide(}  to  ballot  for  a  Presidential  and  a 

Yice-Presidential  nominee  of  the  Republican  party,  a  prop 
osition  to  adjourn  having  been  rejected.  The  result  of  the 
voting  was  that  Crawford  received  sixty-four  votes ;  John 
Quincy  Adams,  two ;  Jackson,  one ;  Macon,  one.  William 
Harris  Crawford  was  declared  the  nominee.  For  Vice- 
President  Albert  Gallatin,  having  received  fifty-seven  votes, 
was  announced  as  the  nominee.  Messrs.  Adams  and  Eustis 
of  Massachusetts,  Samuel  Smith  of  Maryland,  William 
King  of  Maine,  Richard  Rush,  John  Tod,  and  Walter 
Lowrie  of  Pennsylvania,  received  each  one  vote,  and 
Erastus  Root  of  New  York,  two  votes.  Among  the  at 
tendants  on  the  caucus  were  the  two  Barbours,  Archer,  W. 
C.  Rives,  Alexander  Smyth,  Floyd  and  George  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Van  Buren  and  Cambreleng 
of  New  York,  Lowrie  of  Pennsylvania,  William  Smith  of 
South  Carolina,  Spaight  and  Edwards  of  North  Carolina, 
and  Elliot,  Forsyth,  and  Cobb  of  Georgia.  The  caucus 
issued  an  address  to  the  people. 

The  nomination  defined  more  closely  the  issues  before 
the  public.  It  was  now  the  purpose  of  each  of  the  other 
candidates  to  show  that  the  caucus  was  a  usurpation.  They 
argued  that  a  nomination  made  by  only  sixty-six  out  of 
a  total  membership  of  two  hundred  and  sixty-one  was  so 


TRANSITION. 

clearly  a  minority  nomination  as  not  to  be  considered  seri 
ously.  They  not  only  denied  the  regularity  of  such  a  pro 
ceeding,  but  asserted  that  Crawford  was  not  as  The  caucus  de_ 
strong  before  the  people  as  he  appeared  to  be  Bounced  as  & 

,      „      '    ,        ~  rpn  .  -,  usurpation     by 

before  the  Congress.  The  spring  and  summer  the  other  can- 
were  filled  with  the  small  incidents  of  a  bitter,  didates- 
unscrupulous,  and  purely  personal  campaign.1  Rumors  of 
combinations  were  denied,  but  undoubtedly  some  of  the 
reported  propositions  were  made  and  rejected.  There 
seemed  to  be  more  good  feeling  between  the  partisans  of 
Adams  and  those  of  Jackson  than  between  the  friends  of 
any  two  of  the  others  after  the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 
A  Tammany  meeting  in  New  York  nominated  Jackson 
and  Calhoun  for  the  Presidency  and  Vice-Presidency  re 
spectively,  on  the  8th  of  April,  and  the  Jackson  meetings 
generally  followed  the  example.  The  health  of  Mr.  Craw 
ford,  long  precarious,  became  so  much  worse  Crawford's  pre- 
during  the  summer  that  he  was  frequently  carious  health, 
absent  from  his  office  and  from  the  city  of  Washington. 
He  was  a  paralytic  and  was  reduced  nearly  to  the  condition 
of  blindness  and  imbecility.  It  is  possible  that  his  actual 
condition  was  not  always  so  bad  as  his  opponents  repre 
sented,  but  it  is  very  clear  that  it  gave  great  concern  to  his 
friends  and  distrust  to  the  general  public,  who  did  not 
desire  to  install  a  physical  wreck  as  President  of  the  United 
States.  From  a  commanding  position  as  leading  candidate 
he  steadily  sunk  to  the  third  place.  But  the  Crawford 
organs,  led  by  the  National  Intelligencer,  declared  that  he 
suffered  only  from  "  slight  debility/'  and  that  he  would  be 
chosen  over  all  the  others  by  the  electoral  college.  There 
was  another  complication  for  the  Crawford  party.  Mr. 
Gallatin  from  the  first  had  to  contend  with  the  popular 
objection  that  he  had  not  been  nine  years  in  withdrawal  of 
the  country  as  a  citizen  before  the  adoption  of  Gallatin- 
the  Federal  Constitution.  His  services  in  the  Eevolution 
and  subsequently  were  not  thought  to  overbalance  this 

1  Nttes's  Register,  May  29  ;  National  Intelligencer,  March  27. 


24  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

defect.  On  the  21st  of  October  the  National  Intelligencer 
"  was  authorized  to  say"  that  the  name  of  Mr.  Gallatin  as 
a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  was  withdrawn.1 

The  violence  of  the  excitement  was  somewhat  abated  as 

the  day  of  election  approached.     It  was  an  uncertain  con 

flict,  and  passion  had  become  fatigued.     This 

An    uncertain  .  1,1  i  •    i       r  n  i     •        -«o~»r> 

conflict.     AP-     campaign   and   that  which   followed   in   1828 


of  the    have  always  been  regarded  as  standing  alone 

election.  .  ,         J  to  .  & 

in  their  personalism,  virulence,  and  display  or 
all  the  baser  passions  of  human  nature.  In  some  respects 
they  differed.  The  campaign  of  1824  was  more  strictly 
personal,  and  turned  less  on  political  principle  than  that  of 
1828.  Possibly  no  more  malignant  contest  ever  occurred 
than  the  latter,  but  there  was  something  more  in  it  than 
the  strife  of  individuals.  In  1824  the  old  parties  were  only 
known  by  their  names  and  Federalism  was  little  more  than 

a  reminiscence.  On  the  other  hand,  in  1828 
of  the  cam-  there  was  a  distinct  line  of  demarcation,  al- 
an<f  i828°f  1824  Chough  the  political  were  also  personal  bound 

aries.  It  was  Adams  and  Jackson,  but  Adams 
representing  one  construction  of  the  Constitution,  one  policy 
of  administration,  and  Jackson,  through  his  friends  at  least 
and  chief  supporters,  representing  what  was  diametrically 
opposed.  The  policy  of  the  latter  was  indeed  vaguely 
hinted  at  in  the  name  given  to  the  general's  party  in  the 
resolutions  adopted  at  the  Philadelphia  meeting  of  No 
vember  5,  1823.2  They  called  themselves  "Democrats." 
But  this  name  had  sometimes  been  used  before  that  as 
synonymous  with  Republican. 

The  election  of  Mr.  Adams  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
1825         t*ves  ^ad  a  £reater  influence  on  the  politics  of 

the  country  than  almost  any  other  event  that 
had  happened  since  the  foundation  of  the  government.  It 
was  certainly  more  radical  in  its  effects  than  any  federal 
election  that  had  occurred  since  the  election  of  Jefferson 


1  The  letter  of  withdrawal  was  written  on  the  2d. 
3  Niks' s  Register,  November  15,  1823. 


TRANSITION.  25 

in  the  same  manner  in  1801.  General  Jackson  had  a 
plurality  in  the  electoral  college  and  also  of  the  popular 
vote,  but  there  were  various  circumstances  be-  Mr  Adams  cho_ 
sides  the  ambition  of  Presidential  candidates 


and  the  allegation  that  Jackson  was  not  a  suit-  Of  Representa- 
able  man  for  the  position  which  were  availed  tives> 
of  to  compass  his  defeat.  The  Northern  Republicans  were 
generally,  outside  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  deter 
mined  upon  a  Northern  policy  and  a  Northern  man  to 
execute  it.  Born  in  North  Carolina,1  a  citizen  of  Ten 
nessee,  —  both  slave-holding  States,  —  himself  a  slave-holder, 
and  identified  at  most  points  with  Southern  interests  and 
imbued  with  Southern  principles,  General  Jackson  was  re 
garded  by  the  New  England  leaders  as  just  the  man,  not 
withstanding  his  pacific  letter  to  President  Monroe  and  his 
votes  in  favor  of  the  tariff  and  internal  improvements,  to 
further  measures  to  which  they  were  opposed.  Again,  Mr. 
Clay's  friends  saw  that,  were  Jackson  chosen,  Mr.  Clay's 
prospects  would  be  postponed  for  a  long  while,  perhaps 
indefinitely;  for  both  men  were  from  the  same  section, 
whereas  Mr.  Adams  at  the  most  could  stand  in  the  way 
but  two  terms,  and  as  he  was  from  the  North  the  candidate 
would  probably  be  selected  the  next  time  from  the  West. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  a  bargain  was  made 
between  Adams  and  Clay,  or  between  their  unnecessary  to 
respective  friends,  and  assented  to  knowingly  accept  M  true 

.  ^      .        '  .       .      ,          mi  ,...     i     the  charge  that 

or  ignorantly  by  the  principals.     1  he  political    a  bargain  was 


and  personal  reasons  for  preferring  Mr.  Adams 

•*•  .  the    friends   of 

to  General  Jackson  were  sufficient  to  Mr.  Clay,  ciay  and  those 
The  character  of  the  two  men  forbade  the  ofAdams- 
presumption  of  an  immoral  transfer  of  influence.  Neither 
before  nor  since  did  anything  occur  consistent  with  such 
supposed  conduct.  It  is  therefore  safe  to  maintain  that  on 
this  occasion  neither  acted  from  corrupt  motives,  but  that 
both  were  actuated,  as  honorable  men  should  have  been, 

Barton's  Jackson,  i.  52  et  seq.,  established*  this,  but  General  Jack" 
son  said  he  was  a  native  of  South  Carolina. 


26  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

by  a  true  desire  for  the  country's  welfare.  But  the  coalition 
was  none  the  less  morally  reprehensible,  none  the  less  un 
fortunate  in  its  immediate  results  on  the  fortunes  of  the 
parties  engaged  in  it.  The  will  of  the  people  was  set  aside. 
The  legislature  of  Kentucky  itself  had  avowed  a  preference 
for  General  Jackson.  It  was  well  known  that  Jackson,  as 
between  the  two  men,  was  the  popular  choice.1  When, 
therefore,  by  a  vote  of  thirteen  States  for  Mr.  Adams  to 
seven  States  for  General  Jackson  and  four  for  Mr.  Craw 
ford,  the  candidate  of  the  minority  was  elected,  opposition 
to  the  new  administration  began,  even  before  the  news  of 
the  election  had  reached  all  the  settled  parts  of  the  country. 
The  election  took  place  on  the  9th  of  February,  1825.  On 
the  10th  Mr.  Adams  decided  to  appoint  Mr.  Clay  Secretary 
of  State,  and  continue  Mr.  Crawford  as  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.2  The  nomination  of  Mr.  Clay,  opposed  for  a 
while  in  the  Senate,  was  finally  confirmed.3  Mr.  John  W. 
Taylor,  who  had  been  Speaker  of  the  Sixteenth  Congress 
after  Mr.  Clay's  resignation,  and  who  was  a  personal  friend 
of  the  President,  was  chosen  Speaker  of  the  House  in 
December.  The  President's  inaugural  address  had  been 
an  able  and  candid  deliverance  of  his  views,  in  which  he 
had  invoked  harmony,  urged  the  importance  of  internal 
improvements,  and  spoken  modestly  of  himself.  Certain 
passages  of  this  address  and  of  his  first  message  were  after 
wards  criticised  freely  both  for  their  rhetoric  and  their 
political  doctrine,  which  were  assumed  the  one  to  be  faulty 
and  the  other  heretical. 

Mr.  Adams  started  with  a  majority  in  the  Congress  in 
his  favor.  Mr.  Clay  thought  that  the  opposition  to  the 
new  administration  would  not  be  formidable.4  But  the 


1  Hammond,  History  of  Political  Parties  in  the  State  of  New  York 
(Albany,  1842),  vol.  ii.  p.  188. 

2  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  vi.  p.  505.     Crawford  declined 
the  honor. 

3  Of  the  Senators  who  voted  against  the  confirmation  of  Mr.  Clay,  four 
were  Northern  and  ten  Southern,  including  Tennessee  and  Mississippi. 

4  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  vi.  p.  524. 


TRANSITION.  27 

President  knew  that  he  was  unpopular  personally,  and  that 
the  manner  of  his  election  had  excited  public  feeling  against 
him  in  portions  of  the  Union,  while  there  was  nothing  in 
the  combination  with  Clay  to  afford  a  solid  ground  for  the 
hope  that  this  prejudice  would  abate.1  The  friends  of 
Crawford  and  some  of  Mr.  Clay's  own  friends  Union  of  differ. 
who  did  not  like  the  aspect  of  a  bargain  which  ent  elements 
was  charged  very  freely  from  the  time  of  the 
election,  uniting  with  the  old  Calhoun  men  and  the  parti 
sans  of  General  Jackson,  opposed  the  measures  in  Congress 
which  were  brought  forward  by  the  administration  party. 
The  Panama  mission  was  perhaps  the  first  measure  on 
which  there  was  a  general  effort  at  concerted  opposition. 
This  was  a  proposition  looking  to  at  least  moral  support 
of  the  Spanish- American  republics  against  the  aggressions 
of  foreign  powers.  The  opposition  was  not  based  on  un 
friendliness,  but  on  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  United  States 
government  and  the  undesirability  of  interfering  in  the 
concerns  of  other  powers.  The  commission  was  authorized, 
however,  but  nothing  ever  came  of  it.  On  the  8th  of  April, 
1826,  occurred  a  duel  between  Henry  Clay  and 
John  Randolph,  growing  out  of  reflections  by 
the  latter  in  debate  upon  the  character  of  the  former,  the 
subject  matter  intimately  connected  with  the  recent  election, 
In  the  fall  of  1826  and  winter  of  1826-27  Mr.  Calhoun's 
administration  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  and  even 
his  private  reputation  as  a  man  of  honor  and  probity  were 
assailed  in  the  newspapers.  A  contract  with  The  MIX  con- 
an  individual  named  Mix,  in  which  the  chief  tracts- 
clerk  of  the  War  Department  was  involved,  was  relied 
upon  to  smirch  the  character  of  the  clerk's  superior  and 
destroy  his  influence  as  a  public  man.  Mr.  Calhoun  was 
now  Vice-President,  and  the  alleged  offence  was  in  strict 
ness  not  cognizable  by  the  Congress ;  but  he  demanded  an 

1  In  his  diary  for  the  31st  of  December,  1825,  Mr.  Adams  states  that 
his  "elevation"  had  not  been  "in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  pride  or  to 
just  desire  .  .  .  with  perhaps  two-thirds  of  the  whole  people  adverse  to 
the  actual  result." — Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  vii.  p.  98. 


28  A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

investigation.  Mr.  Barbour,  his  successor  in  the  "War 
Office,  pronounced  the  accusation  a  base  calumny,  and  the 
committee  of  the  House  asked  for  by  Mr.  Calhoun  exoner 
ated  him  completely.1 

Steps  had  been  taken  early  after  Adams's  election2  to 
make  General  Jackson  the  candidate  against  Mr.  Adams 
or  whomever  should  be  the  administration  man  in  1828. 

An  eari    cam    -^u^  ^e  camPai&n  was  no^  very  exciting  —  this 
jack-    campaign  of  four  years,  the  residuary  legatee 


ers'  of  a  previous  four  years'  campaign  —  until 
1827,  when  a  series  of  letters  were  written  by  General 
Jackson  and  many  dinners  were  given  in  honor  of  both 
Presidential  candidates.  The  resolutions  of  the  Virginia 
legislature  and  of  the  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  anti- 
tariff  meetings,  passed  during  the  spring  and  summer  of 
1827,  were  offset  by  protective  meetings  held  chiefly  at  the 
North.  The  general  convention  of  the  protectionists  met 
at  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  on  the  30th  of  July,  in  this 
year.  These  events  are  properly  connected  with  chapters 
of  this  work  which  follow.  So  far  as  the  principals  in  the 
contest  for  supremacy  were  concerned,  Mr  Adams  for  him 
self  did  little  to  provoke  animadversion.  General  Jack 
son,  on  the  contrary,  took  up  his  own  cause  in  his  own 
effective  though  undignified  way.  His  constant  allusions 
to  "  the  bargain"  drew  out  Mr.  Clay,  who  denied  the 
accusation  with  great  indignation  and  called  for  proofs. 
These  General  Jackson  attempted  to  produce.  But  his 
witnesses  differed  so  much  in  details  that  their  testimony 
was  practically  valueless.3  Nevertheless,  an  unpleasant 
impression  yet  remained  on  the  public  mind,  and  positive 
verbal  or  ocular  proof  was  not  demanded. 

Meantime  the  new  Congress,  which  had  been  elected  in 


1  Register  of  Debates,  1827,  p.  1128  ;  Niks' 8  Register  for  February  and 
March,  1827. 

2  Adams  charged  that  the  next  day  Calhoun  began  to  plot  against  him 
and  to  combine  the  opposition. — Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol. 
vi.  p.  506. 

8  Niks' s  Register,  November  10. 


TRANSITION.  29 

opposition  to  the  administration,  had  chosen  a  Speaker 
from  what  was  called  the  Virginia  school  of  politicians. 
Andrew  Stevenson  was  preferred  to  John  W.  ThenewS  ak 

Taylor.1  er  of  the  Vir- 

Various  names  were  suggested  among  the  gini 
Adams  men  for  the  position  of  Yice-President.  Clay  was 
disposed  at  one  time  to  consider  a  proposition  of  the  sort.2 
He  himself  spoke  to  the  President  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  and  Mr.  Adams  declared  to 
the  latter  his  approbation  of  the  suggestion.3  The  name 
of  Crawford  awakened  in  Mr.  Adams  recollections  of  an 
unpleasant  nature.  They  were  old  and  bitter  enemies. 
One  branch  of  the  Georgia  legislature  nominated  Mr. 
Crawford  in  December.  Although  from  the  start  there 
were  indications  that  Calhoun  would  be  the  choice  of  the 
Jackson  party  for  Vice-President,  it  was  not  until  the  close 
of  1827  or  beginning  of  1828  that  there  was  a  general 
agreement  to  that  effect. 

One  of  Jackson's  most  influential  supporters  was  Martin 
Van  Buren,  of  New  York,  then  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States.  He  had  been  in  favor  of  Crawford  in 
1824.  The  State-rights  reactionary  movement, 
begun  in  Virginia  by  John  Randolph  and  Governor  Giles, 
and  of  which  the  Richmond  Enquirer  was  the  ablest  news 
paper  exponent,  had  extended  to  other  States  and  as  far 
north  as  New  York.  In  accepting  re-election  to  the 
Senate,  Mr.  Van  Buren  spoke  of  "  remaining  rights"  of 
the  States  and  the  purpose  "  to  restore  those  of  which  they 
had  been  divested  by  construction."  The  effort  was  made 
to  stem  the  tide  which  had  set  in  in  favor  of  internal  im 
provements  and  protective  legislation,  and  which  had  been 


1  "  There  is  a  decided  majority  of  both  houses  of  Congress,"  writes 
Mr.  Adams  in  his  diary  on  the  3d  of  December,  "in  opposition  to  the 
administration — a  state  of  things  which  has  never  before  occurred  under 
the  government  of  the  United  States." — Memoirs  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  vol.  vii.  p.  367. 

2  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  vii.  p.  216. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  352. 


30  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

steadily  rising  since  the  close  of  the  second  war  with  Great 
Britain.  Both  the  administration  and  the  opposition  pro 
fessed  to  he  democratic.1  There  was  no  fully  organized 
Federal  party,  except  perhaps  in  Delaware,  where  it  had 
heen  defeated  recently.  The  Jackson  party,  however,  as- 
ciaim  of  the  sumed  at  the  South  to  he  the  old  Republican 
Jackson  party,  party,  in  favor  of  strict  construction,  opposed 
to  lavish  expenditures,  and  especially  to  the  tariff,  which 
was  very  unpopular  in  that  section.  Still,  Mr.  Adams  had 
supporters  even  in  Virginia.  So  late  as  October,  1827, 
there  is  reason  to  think  that  a  majority  of  the  Virginia 
newspapers  was  favorable  to  the  administration.2  The  Vir 
ginians,  indeed,  did  not  admire  General  Jackson  as  a  civil 
ian.  The  Richmond  Enquirer  said  it  regarded  him  as  "  a 
choice  between  inevitable  evils." 3  On  the  other  hand,  Mr. 
Adams  was  not  joyfully  supported  by  his  party.4 

Party  spirit  was  simply  venomous  on  both  sides.  The 
Jackson  men  cried  "  Bargain,"  while  the  Adams  men  re- 
Party  spirit  torted  with  coarse  allusions  to  circumstances 
venomous.  fa  t"ne  marriage  of  General  Jackson.5  At  the 
Capitol,  after  delivery  of  a  message  to  one  of  the  houses 
of  Congress,  Mr.  John  Adams,  son  and  private  secretary  of 
the  President,  was  assaulted  by  a  journalist  named  Jarvis, 
who  alleged  in  extenuation  that  young  Adams  had  insulted 
Jarvis's  parents  in  his  own  hearing  at  the  White  House 
and  had  refused  reparation  or  even  correspondence  on  the 
subject.  The  affair  was  investigated,  as  it  created  excite 
ment  and  was  thought  to  trench  on  the  privileges  of  the 
Congress.  But,  besides  a  condemnatory  report,  nothing 
was  ever  done.  The  anti-Masonic  excitement  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  caused  by  the  mysterious  disappearance  of 


1  National  Intelligencer,  January  9,  1828. 

2  Niles' s  Register  (October  6)  says  that  there  were  at  that  time  eighteen 
Adams  and  eleven  Jackson  papers  in  Virginia. 

3  February  16,  1828. 

4  Walsh,  in  National  Gazette. — National  Intelligencer,  December  15,  1828. 

5  Judge  Overton's  statement  (Parton,  vol.  i.  pp.  148-153)  exonerates 
Jackson. 


TRANSITION.  31 

Morgan,  who  had  threatened  to  print  some  exposures  of 
Freemasonry,  was  a  factor  in  the  election.  The  Adams 
party  denied  that  it  was  concerned  in  producing  or  keep 
ing  up  the  popular  feeling  in  the  matter.1  Private  letters 
and  conversations  were  violated  frequently  during  this  re 
markable  campaign.2 

Slavery  did  not  enter  into  this  election  to  any  consider 
able  extent.     But  some  of  the  Adams  papers  denounced 
Jackson  for  owning  slaves.     The  Compromise 
of  1820  had   set  aside  this  question   for  the 
time,  and  the  tariff  was  then  and  during  the       *s^e  temP°- 
whole   of   the  Jackson  period   the    principal 
issue  between  the  sections. 

The  spring  of  1827  had  found  the  administration  still 
confident  of  success.  Mr.  Adams,  with  his  more  cautious 
temper,  was  less  sanguine,  perhaps,  than  Mr.  Clay,  the 
head  of  the  cabinet,  or  Mr.  Webster,  leader  in  the  Con 
gress.  There  was,  apparently,  good  reason  for  this  hope 
ful  spirit;  for,  on  the  surface  at  least,  affairs  were  pros 
perous.  Mr.  Van  Buren's  party  organs  and  workers  were 
restrained  from  pronouncing  for  General  Jackson  in  New 
York  until  after  this  period  in  the  struggle.3  The  Clinton 
party,  which  was  not  then  in  the  ascendency,  had  been  for 
him  all  the  while.4  In  both  State  and  Federal  elections 
the  candidates  were  discriminated  as  Adams  or  as  Jackson 
men,  though  sometimes  under  protest  against  the  slavish- 
ness  of  the  classification. 

The  election  of  1828  was  decisive.  General  Jackson 
received  178  votes  in  the  electoral  college,  and 

•JCOQ 

Mr.  Adams  83;    Calhoun,  for  Vice-President, 

171 ;  Rush,  83 ;  and  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  7.     In  this 


1  The  Anti-Masonic  party  in  New  York  supported  Adams,  who  was 
not  a  Freemason,  in  preference  to  Jackson,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
order. — Hammond,  vol.  ii.  p.  283. 

2  Richmond  Enquirer,  April  4,  1828. 

3  That  is,  about  the  time  of  the  Tammany  meeting,  September  26. — 
Hammond,  vol.  ii.  p.  259. 

*  Ibid.,  256. 


32  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

campaign  General  Jackson  had  depended  upon  New  York 
in  the  North,  as  he  had  done  in  1824  upon  Pennsylvania. 
Jackson's  The  vote  for  Jackson  and  that  for  Adams  were 

election.  t}lus   distributed    as   to    States   and   sections: 

Maine,  Jackson  1,  Adams  8;  New  Hampshire,  Adams  8; 
Massachusetts,  Adams  15 ;  Rhode  Island,  Adams  4 ;  Con 
necticut,  Adams  8';  Vermont,  Adams  7;  New  York,  Jack 
son  20,  Adams  16;  New  Jersey,  Adams  8;  Pennsylvania, 
Jackson  28 ;  Delaware,  Adams  3 ;  Ohio,  Jackson  16 ;  Indi 
ana,  Jackson  5 ;  Illinois,  Jackson  3.  These  were  all  Northern 
States.  In  the  South,  Maryland  gave  Jackson  5  and  Adams 
6 ;  Virginia,  Jackson  24 ;  and  all  of  the  other  States  were 
for  Jackson,  as  follows :  North  Carolina,  15 ;  South  Caro 
lina,  11 ;  Georgia,  9 ;  Kentucky,  14 ;  Tennessee,  11 ;  Louisi 
ana,  5 ;  Mississippi,  3 ;  Alabama,  5 ;  and  Missouri,  3.1 

Mr.  Adams's  inauguration  had  been  grave  and  decorous. 
A  new  era  requires  new  men  and  new  modes.  Mr.  Adams, 
the  last  of  the  post-revolutionary  statesmen  who  were  to 
A  new  era  and  fill  the  chair  of  President,  was  a  man  of  aristo- 
newmen.  cratic  instincts,  personally  simple  to  the  point 
of  austerity  in  tastes  and  manners.  But  General  Jackson 
was  a  man  of  the  people.  Tall,  erect,  and  "  gifted  with 
what  we  call  a  presence," 2  imperious,  as  if  born  to  com 
mand,  he  yet  felt  himself  to  be  one  of  the  vast  multitude 
of  American  sovereigns.  Such  a  man  naturally  called 
around  him  on  his  promotion  to  the  Presidency  a  horde 
of  all  classes  of  admirers  as  well  as  many  mere  curiosity- 
seekers.  Alluding  to  the  reception  which  followed  the 
ceremonies,  Judge  Story  says,  that  "  the  reign  of  King 
Mob  seemed  triumphant."3 

1  Register  of  Debates  of  the  Twentieth  Congress,  p.  350. 

2  Parton's  Life  of  Jackson,  vol.  i.  p.  111. 
8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  p.  169. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   TARIFF— 1789-1820. 

THE  enlightened  theories  of  political  economy  which 
were  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  political  liberty,  first  plucked 
in  England  and  then  speedily  transshipped  across  the 
Channel  and  assimilated  with  the  radical  philosophy  of 
France,  were  always  difficult  to  adapt  to  the 
every-day  wants  of  nations.  As  conceived  by 
Adam  &mith  and  expanded  by  his  successors,  cuity  of  adap- 
the  doctrine  of  free  trade  seems  to  the  rational 
mind  one  which  the  sagacity  of  statesmen  and  the  common 
sense  of  the  people  alike  would  eagerly  embrace  and  steadily 
put  into  practice.  That  it  has  not  been  so,  all  admit.  At 
least  some  of  the  reasons  why  will  appear  in  the  course 
of  the  following  pages. 

The  subject  of  revenue  had  been  the  most  vexatious  in 
the  history  of  the  United  Colonies  and  of  the  United  States 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  Above  The  gubject  of 
everything  else,  the  difficulty  of  raising  it  had  revenue  under 
brought  about  the  movement  for  a  more  per-  XnfWoSai* 
feet  government.  The  Constitution  had  left  and  under  the 

,,  j    i         j_i  Constitution. 

the  matter,  not  as  proposed  by  the  extreme 
State-rights  party,  in  the  hands  of  the  States  as  before, 
with  the  dangerous  power  of  State  coercion  as  the  only 
means  for  its  collection  in  the  last  resort,  but  with  the 
Congress  to  legislate  and  the  executive  to  carry  out  the 
legislation,  the  Supreme  Court  having  been  intended  to 
decide  upon  all  points  of  construction  of  the  laws  framed.1 

1  Certainly  as  to  all  which  did  not  involve  questions  of  sovereignty  in 
their  last  analysis. 

3  33 


34  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

It  was  competent  then  for  the  Congress  to  pass  such  acts 
as  should  consist  with  the  Constitution  ;  and  that  body  was 
The  power  of  expected  to  enact  none  hut  such  laws  as  were 
the  congress  suited  to  the  existing  needs  of  the  country, 

after  the  ratifi-  .  .  ,  .  .     ,." 

cation  of  the  with  a  prospective  glance,  but  with  prejudice 
constitution.  £O  no  sectlon,  class,  or  interest  whatever.  As 
questions  of  money  and  the  regulation  of  trade  lie  at 
the  base  of  all  public  administration,  it  was  the  revenue 
for  the  support  of  the  government  which  was  the  first 
matter  debated  in  committee  of  the  whole  in  the  first 
House  of  Representatives.  It  was  on  the  8th 

1789 

Revenue  the  of  April,  1789,  and  Mr.  Page,  of  Virginia, 
first  question  presided.  Mr.  Madison  introduced  the  subject 

debated,    April     • 

s.  Mr.  Madison    in   some   general   remarks,  in   the   course   of 


he  alluded  to  the  impotency  of  the  late 
Congress  and  the  establishment  of  a  more  ef 
fectual  government.  Both  on  account  of  the  man  and  the 
occasion  this  first  speech  in  the  Congress  on  a  great  public 
question  is  worthy  of  our  consideration.  Madison  was  the 
leader  in  that  chamber  of  the  party  which  had  been  suc 
cessful.  He  was  in  the  early  maturity  of  a  life  which  was 
to  be  longer  than  the  average  and  devoted  almost  through 
out  to  the  public  service  of  his  country.  He  was  a  speaker 
of  assured  powers,  his  knowledge  of  men  and  principles 
was  profound,  his  reading  was  over  a  wide  field,  and  his 
command  of  public  questions  was.  certainly  not  inferior  to 
that  of  any  man  of  his  times,  either  at  home  or  abroad. 
He  had  acquired  experience  in  the  legislature  of  Virginia, 
in  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  in  the  convention 
that  framed  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  in  the  State  con 
vention  which  ratified  the  great  instrument.  His  wisdom 
as  a  counsellor,  his  practice  as  a  draftsman  of  laws  and 
constitutions,  his  readiness  and  tact  as  a  debater,  were  every 
where  recognized.  It  was  well  that  he  should  point  the  way. 
Mr.  Madison  said  that  the  Congress  ought,  in  its  first  act, 
to  revive  those  principles  of  honor  and  honesty  that  had 
too  long  lain  dormant.  To  remedy  the  evil  of  a  deficiency 
in  the  treasury  "  a  national  revenue  must  be  obtained,  but 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  35 

the  system  must  be  such  a  one  that,  while  it  secures  the 
object  of  revenue,  it  shall  not  be  oppressive  to  our  constitu 
ents."     He  apprehended  that  both  these  objects    A  nationaj  reV. 
might  be  obtained  from  an  impost.     "  In  pur-    euue    without 
suing  this  measure,"  he  continued,  "  I  know    opprei 
that  two  points  occur  for  our  consideration.     The  first  re 
spects  the  general  regulation  of  commerce,  which  in  my 
opinion  ought  to  be  as  free  as  the  policy  of    Commerce 
nations  will  admit.     The  second  relates  to  rev-    should  be  free 

,     ,  .      .       ,  .        T  as  the  policy  of 

enue  alone;  and  this  is  the  point  1  mean  more  nations  win  ad- 
particularly  to  bring  into  the  view  of  the  com-  ^ofT1^sys' 
mittee."1  Not  having  sufficient  material  for 
elucidating  fully  these  points  and  the  situation  admitting 
of  no  delay,  he  proposed  in  a  schedule  such  articles  of 
regulation  as  were  likely  to  occasion  the  least  difficulty. 
The  propositions  of  1783  having  been  generally  approved 
by  the  several  States  in  some  form  or  other,  he  made  them 
the  basis  of  what  he  called  a  "  temporary  system."  He 
thought  that  some  deviation  from  the  scale  of  duties  then 
affixed  was  required  by  the  changes  in  public  circumstances, 
but  he  recommended  a  general  adherence  to  the  plan.2 
Boudinot,  of  New  Jersey,  concurred  in  the  proposition, 
and  White,  Madison,  and  Parker  favored  the  motion  of 
the  first-named  that  the  blanks  should  be  filled  at  a  later 
day.3 

On  the  next  day  discussion  in  its  proper  sense  began.  The 
plan  suggested  was  for  ad  valorem  duties  on  some  articles, 
but  Lawrence,  of  New  York,  advocated  such  duties  on  all.4 
Fitzsimoris,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  that  he  had  extended  hia 
views  further  than  the  gentlemen  who  had  spoken  and  a 
temporary  system.  He  offered  a  resolution  to  embrace  his 
views  in  favor  of  enumerated  articles,  and  which  included 
a  large  and  varied  list  of  articles  of  drink,  food,  clothing, 
house-building,  vehicles,  etc.  Among  these,  he  observed, 
were  some  calculated  to  encourage  the  productions  of  our 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  102. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  103.  3  Ibid.,  p.  104.  4  Ibid.,  p.  105. 


36  A  HISTORY  OF    THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

country  and  protect  our  infant  manufactures,  besides  others 
tending  to  operate  as  sumptuary  restrictions  upon  articles 
that  are  often  termed  those  of  luxury.1  Here 


enumerated  ar-    wag  a  }me  of  division  drawn   by  a  Pennsyl- 

ticles.    Germ  of  •IJTV/TJ-  i»    j  j 

the  protective  vania  hand.  Madison  had  proposed  revenue  as 
policy.  £he  object;  Fitzsimons  now  suggested  protec 

tion.  Madison  had  favored  a  temporary  system  comprising 
a  few  enumerated  articles,  Fitzsimons  now  advocated  a 
permanent  system  and  a  great  list  of  articles  of  necessity 
as  well  as  of  luxury.  The  conflict  that  has  not  yet  ceased, 
that  probably  never  will  cease,  then  began,  —  the  conflict 
of  special  versus  general  interests,  of  ideas  with  illusions. 
White,  of  Virginia,  opposed  making  too  minute  an  inquiry, 
and  thought  that  the  House  should  take  in  only  the  most 
material  and  productive  articles,  leaving  the  others  for 
another  occasion.2  Tucker,  of  South  Carolina,  remarked 
the  absence  of  all  members  south  of  Virginia  except  him 
self,  and  on  that  account  desired  delay.  But  he  said  he 
was  willing  to  go  as  far  as  a  temporary  ad  valorem  impost 
and  a  duty  on  the  enumerated  articles  of  the  Congress  of 
1783.  s  Tonnage  duty  was  a  subject  requiring,  in  his  judg 
ment,  deliberation  and  full  representation.  On  the  other 
hand,  Hartley,  like  Fitzsimons,  wished  to  go  into  the  business 
•on  as  broad  a  bottom  of  protection  for  domestic  manufactures 
as  was  practicable.4  Madison  thought  from  what  had  been 
said  that  there  was  a  disposition  to  go  further  than  was 
necessary.  It  was  his  view  to  restrain  the  first  essay  on 
the  subject  to  the  object  of  revenue  and  make  that  a  tem 
porary  expedient.  He  wished  for  further  information  on 
the  state  of  our  manufactures.5  Agreeing  with  Tucker, 
that  the  sentiments  of  gentlemen  from  different  sections 
should  be  regarded,  he  argued  that  we  should  limit  our 
considerations  on  this  head  by  the  general  interests  of  the 
Union.  Mr.  Madison  continued  :  "  Gentlemen  will  be 
pleased  to  recollect  that  those  parts  of  the  Union  which 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  106. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  107.  3  Ibid.,  p.  108. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  109.                                    *  Ibid.,  p.  110. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  37 

contribute  more  under  the  system  than  the  others  are  also 
those  parts  more  thinly  planted  and  consequently  stand 
most  in  need  of  national  protection ;  therefore  they  will 
have  less  reason  to  complain  of  unequal  burdens.  There 
is  another  consideration :  the  States  that  are  most  advanced 
in  population  and  ripe  for  manufactures  ought  to  have  their 
particular  interests  attended  to  in  some  degree/  While 
these  States  retained  the  power  of  making  regulations  of 
trade  they  had  the  power  to  protect  and  cherish  such  insti 
tutions  ;  by  adopting  the  present  Constitution  they  have 
thrown  the  exercise  of  their  power  into  other  hands.  They 
must  have  done  this  with  an  expectation  that  these  interests 
would  not  be  neglected  here."1  /His  general  principle,  as 
expressed  in  his  own  language,  was,  "  that  commerce  ought 
to  be  free,  and  labor  and  industry  left  at  large  to  find  its 
proper  object."  But,  he  continued,  there  were  "  exceptions 
important  in  themselves.  If  America  was  to  leave  her 
ports  perfectly  free  and  make  no  discrimina-  Madison,s  rin. 
tion,  it  is  obvious  that  such  policy  would  go  to  cipie  of  dis- 
exclude  American  shipping  altogether  from 
foreign  ports  and  she  would  be  materially  affected  in  one 
of  her  most  important  interests.  To  this  we  may  add 
another  consideration,  that  by  encouraging  the  means  of 
transporting  our  productions  with  facility  we  encourage 
the  raising  them ;  and  this  object,  I  apprehend,  is  likely  to 
be  kept  in  view  by  the  general  government." 2  Again : 
"  There  may  be  some  manufactures  which,  being  once 
formed,  can  advance  towards  perfection  without  any  ad 
ventitious  aid,  while  others,  for  want  of  the  fostering  hand 
of  government,  will  be  unable  to  go  on  at  all."  He  did 
not  think  that  any  great  national  advantage  arose  from 
sumptuary  prohibitions.3  Embargoes  in  time  of  war  were 
another  exception.  He  observed  that  there  might  be  some 
truth  in  the  remark  that  each  nation  should  have  within 
itself  the  means  of  defence,  but  he  was  well  persuaded  that 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  111. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  112.  3  Ibid.,  p.  113. 


38  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  reasoning  on  this  subject  had  been  carried  too  far. 
Madison  did  not  object  to  Fitzsimons's  propositions,  he  said, 
"  because  so  far  as  we  can  enumerate  the  proper  objects  and 
apply  specific  duties  to  them  we  conform  to  the  practice 
prevailing  in  many  of  the  States  and  adopt  the  most  laud 
able  method  of  collecting  revenue;  at  least  preferable  to 
laying  a  general  tax."  l  But  he  thought  that  the  protecting 
of  domestic  manufactures  ought  not  to  be  "  too  confusedly 
blended"  with  the  raising  of  revenue.2  Boudinot  favored 
specific  duties,  but  was  willing  to  wait.3  The  committee 
added  Fitzsimons's  list  to  that  proposed  by  Madison. 
The  enumeration  was  for  the  purpose  of  placing  a  higher 
duty  than  was  borne  by  articles  left  in  the  common  mass. 

In  this  first  tariff  debate  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
Northern  members  who  spoke  had  advocated  as  full  a  pro  tec- 
How  the  sec-  tion  as  possible  for  manufactures,  that  a  Southern 


were  member  had  asked  only  for  delay,  while  Mr. 
first  tariff  de-  Madison  had  broached  the  doctrine  of  a  tariff 
for  revenue  with  incidental  protection  as  far  as 
practicable.  The  position  of  the  latter  was  most  carefully 
defined.  It  was  an  adaptation  of  the  principle  of  free 
trade  to  practical  legislation.  Protection  was  not  to  be 
"  too  confusedly  blended"  with  the  prime  object,  which  was 
the  raising  of  revenue.  There  was  to  be  no  protection  for 
the  sake  of  protection  and  no  disguise  of  protection  under 
the  name  of  revenue. 

On  the  llth  of  April,  Smith,  of  Maryland,  presented  a 

petition   from   the   tradesmen,  manufacturers, 

and  others  of  Baltimore,  setting  forth  the  de 

cline  of  trading  and  manufacturing  interests  in  the  country, 

and  asking  relief  from  "the  supreme  legislature  of  the 

United  States  as  the  guardians  of  the  whole  empire."  4 

The  question  of  how  to  proceed  with  the  subject  of  the 

revenue  was  then  debated.     Lee  proposed  to  go  on  seriatim 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  114. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  115.     This  first  petition  on  the  subject  was  referred  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  39 

with  the  articles.1  Goodhue,  of  Massachusetts,  got  the 
committee  to  agree  to  lay  a  duty  on  anchors  of  one  hundred 
and  twelve  pounds,  every  dozen  of  wool  cards,  wrought 
tin-ware,  every  box  of  lemons,  and  every  barrel  of  limes.2 
Boudinot  suggested  that  until  a  general  plan  could  be  de 
vised,  officers  should  be  appointed  to  collect  the  impost  and 
protecting  duties  in  the  manner  and  under  the  penalties 
directed  by  the  laws  of  the  proper  State.  Where  there 
were  no  revenue  laws,  he  would  have  the  laws  of  the  ad 
joining  State  adopted.3  Bland  and  Lee  agreed  with  Bou 
dinot  that  there  was  not  sufficient  information  for  the  cre 
ation  of  a  permanent  system.  After  farther  A  committee 
discussion  the  proposition  of  Madison  to  ap-  aPP°inted- 
point  a  committee  to  prepare  a  bill  to  regulate  the  mode 
of  collecting  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage  was  agreed  to. 
Meantime,  the  discussion  on  the  articles  continued.4  Sher 
man  proposed  fifteen  cents  a  gallon  on  rum.  Smith  thought 
that  ten  cents  was  enough.  The  first  debate  over  any 
article  was  over  this,  arid  if  it  was  not  as  pun-  Rum  the  firgt 
gent  as  the  subject,  the  fault  was  not  the  article  <iis- 
speakers'.  It  was  resumed  on  the  14th  of 
April,  when  it  was  largely  connected  with  molasses,  rum's 
principal  ingredient.  Lawrence,  of  New  York,  favored  a 
rum  duty  of  twelve  cents,  urging  the  danger  of  a  loss  of 
revenue.5  Fitzsimons  and  Madison  sustained  Sherman  and 
fifteen  cents.  The  committee  decided  to  put  Jamaica  rum 
at  that  rate.6  Madison  then  proposed  a  duty  of  eight  cents 
on  molasses,  which  was  resisted  by  the  New  England,  New 
York,  and  New  Jersey  representatives.  Ames,  Thacher, 
Goodhue,  Lawrence,  and  Boudinot  spoke  for 
lower  rates,  and  finally  the  duty  was  fixed  at 
six  cents.7  After  some  discussion  Madeira  wine,  a  com 
mon  article  of  import,  was  rated  at  thirty-three  and  one- 
third  cents  a  gallon  by  a  vote  of  twenty- one  to  nineteen. 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  116. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.,  p.  119. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  120.  6  Ibid.,  p.  125. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  128.  7  Ibid.,  pp.  128-138. 


40  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

All  other  wines  were  placed  at  twenty  cents.1     The  com 

mittee  agreed  to  tax  common  sugar  one  cent  per  pound  ; 

coffee,  two  and  one-half  cents  on  the  pound. 

Wines.    Sugar. 

After  some  consideration,  action  upon  tea  was 
deferred.2 

On  the  day  following,  on  the  motion  to  insert  beer,  ale, 
and  porter  in  the  list  of  dutiable  articles,  Fitzsimons  said, 
"  If  the  morals  of  the  people  were  to  be  improved  by  what 
entered  into  their  diet,  it  would  be  prudent  in  the  national 

legislature   to   encourage  the  manufacture  of 

Malt  liquors.  &  . 

malt  liquors.  •  He  moved  a  duty  of  nine 
cents  per  gallon,  and  was  seconded  by  Lawrence,  who 
urged  the  consideration  that  it  would  tend  also  to  encour 
age  agriculture.  But  Smith,  of  Maryland,  opposed  what 
he  called  the  high  duties  contemplated  by  some  members, 
and  Gale  thought  that  the  proposed  duty  would  prohibit 
importations  and  defeat  the  purpose  of  revenue,  while 
giving  some  brewers  a  monopoly.4  Madison  and  the  House 
concurred  to  some  extent  with  these  latter  views,  for  on  his 
motion  a  duty  of  eight  cents  was  agreed  to.5  The  com 
mittee  struck  out  the  articles  beef,  pork,  and  butter.6  Fitz 
simons  advocated  and  Tucker,  of  South  Carolina,  opposed 
a  duty  of  two  cents  the  pound  on  candles,  the  former  be 
cause  Pennsylvania  no  longer  imported  the  article  from 
England  or  Ireland,  and  the  latter  for  the  reason  that  South 

Carolina  did  import  it.  Tucker  said  that, 
Pennsylvania  so  far  as  the  enumeration  went,  the  impost 
r"  woul<*  bear  unequally  upon  South  Carolina.7 


Boudinot  and  Lawrence  favored  the  duty,  the 
latter  urging  "  that  if  candles  were  an  object  of  consid 
erable  importation,  they  ought  to  be  taxed  for  the  sake 
of  obtaining  revenue,  and  if  they  were  not  imported  in 
considerable  quantity  the  burden  upon  the  consumer  would 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  141. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  142.  3  Ibid.,  p.  144.  *  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  145.    Beer,  ale,  and  porter  in  bottles,  twenty-five  cents  per 
dozen. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  146.  '  Ibid. 


THE    TARIFF— -1789-1820.  41 

be  small,  while  it  tended  to  cherish  a  valuable  manufacture. " 
The  motion  prevailed.1 

It  would  be  tedious  to  review  the  full  list.  Cheese  was 
dutied  at  four  cents ;  soap  at  two  cents.  Boots  were  rated 
at  fifty  cents  a  pair ;  shoes  at  ten  cents  a  pair,  without  any 
debate.2 

The  manufacture  of  steel  was  described  by  Pennsylvania 
speakers  as  in  its  infancy,  but  likely  to  emancipate  the 
country  from  the  control  exercised  by  foreign 
manufacturers.  It  had,  however,  been  attended 
by  considerable  success.  The  materials  necessary  to  make 
the  article  were  the  product  of  almost  every  State  in  the 
Union.  Fitzsimons  thought  that  five  shillings  per  hundred 
weight  would  not  be  oppressive.3  Madison  said  that  in 
stead  of  selecting  this  article  to  be  the  object  of  encourage 
ment  for  manufacture  and  not  for  revenue,  it  would  be 
more  proper,  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  Mr.  Tucker,  to  give  a  bounty  on  the  importation. 
It  was  so  materially  connected  with  the  improvement  of 
agriculture  and  other  manufactures  that  he  questioned  its 
propriety,  even  on  that  score.  He  proposed  to  place  the 
article  on  the  ad  valorem  list  at  five  per  cent,  duty.4  Tucker 
described  the  state  of  South  Carolina  as  one  of  debt,  with 
prices  of  products  falling.  Kice  and  indigo  were  too  low  to 
be  cultivated  by  many  of  the  planters.  He  called  for  the 
exercise  of  liberality  and  moderation.  Fitzsimons,  in  reply, 
said  he  would  have  gentlemen  get  rid  of  local  considera 
tions.  He  seemed  little  disposed,  however,  Local  consider- 
himself  to  be  guided  by  his  precept  where  ations- 
Pennsylvania  was  concerned.  One  of  his  arguments  was 
that  the  negroes  of  South  Carolina  did  not  consume  as 
much  as  the  white  inhabitants  of  the  Eastern  States,  an 
argument  we  shall  meet  with  very  often  as  we  progress. 
Lee's  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  carried,  and  Boudinot's 
motion  to  fill  the  blank  with  fifty-six  cents  per  one  hundred 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  147. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.  *  Ibid.,  p.  148. 


42  A  HISTORY  OF    THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

and  twelve  pounds  was  adopted  rather  than  Fitzsimons's 
for  a  duty  of  sixty-six.1 

The  next  subject  affording  a  division  on  sectional  lines 
was  the  duty  on  hemp,  proposed  by  Mr.  Madison  on  the 

15th  of  April  and  debated  on  that  and  the  suc- 
Another  divis-  ceeding  day.  The  contest  was  between  the 
ion  on  sectional  ship-building  and  the  agricultural  interests. 

Madison  had  moved  to  levy  a  duty  on  hemp 
as  well  as  cordage,  although  opposed  to  the  former,2  and 
Moore,  of  Pennsylvania,  had  declared  that  the  Southern 
States  were  well  calculated  for  the  cultivation  of  hemp. 
The  ISTew  England  view  was  a  duty  of  forty  cents  to  en 
courage  the  importation  of  raw  material  and  manufacture 
of  cordage,  the  other  favored  seventy-five  cents,  and  the 
committee  of  the  whole  accepted  Madison's  compromise 
proposition,  which  was  fifty  cents.3  Other  ship-building 
materials  were  considered,  as  nails,  spikes,  tacks,  and  brads. 
Madison  conceived  that  this  tax  would  increase  the  price 
of  ship-building,  Bland  that  it  would  bear  unequally  upon 
the  Southern  States ;  but  Goodbue  and  Ames  spoke  of  the 
importance  to  which  the  manufacture  of  nails  had  attained.4 
From  what  had  been  said  of  the  small  expense  and  great 
facility  for  the  manufacture,  Tucker  judged  that  the  in 
dustry  stood  in  no  want  of  protection.  Ames  combated 
this  argument,  and  was  among  the  first  to  proclaim  in  the 
halls  of  Congress  the  naked  doctrine  of  force  as  necessary 
to  build  up  American  manufactures.  "  The  commerce 
of  America,"  he  averred,  "particularly  the  Southern 
parts,  had  by  the  force  of  habit  and  English  connections 
been  setting  strong  upon  the  British  coasts.  It  required," 
he  contended,  "the  aid  of  the  general  government  to 
divert  it  to  a  more  natural  course.  Good  policy  and 
sound  wisdom  demonstrated  the  propriety  of  an  inter 
change  between  the  different  States  in  the  Union.  To 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  147, 
149. 

2  Ibid.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  152-156.  *  Ibid. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  43 

procure  this  political  good,  some  force  was  necessary."1 
Fitzsimons,  who  was  so  active  on  the  subject  of  steel,  de 
clared  that  he  was  not  very  solicitous  as  to  this  duty.  Fi 
nally,  nails  and  spikes  were  taxed  one  cent  per  pound,  but 
tacks  and  brads  were  stricken  out.2 

But  if  New  England  had  appealed  to  legislative  force  to 
establish  a  theory  of  revenue,  which,  however,  as  a  whole 
she  was  not  yet  prepared  and  was  not  for  many  years  to  be 
prepared  to  adopt,  other  parts  of  the  country  were  to  excite 
alarms  of  a  different  nature.  Southern  members  generally 
opposed  a  duty  on  salt  as  oppressive,  and  Burke,  Alarms 
Tucker,  and  Smith  were  joined  by  Scott  and 
Moore,  of  Pennsylvania.  Scott  said  "  the  duty  was  bad 
policy  and  might  go  nigh  to  wreck  the  government."  He 
declared  he  had  reasons  of  a  political  nature  to  support  his 
opinion.3  Smith,  of  Maryland,  also,  but  more  guardedly, 
alluded  to  "the  shoals  of  discontent."  Interior  South 
Carolina  was  believed,  he  said,  to  be  "  opposed  to  the  new 
government." 4  On  a  subsequent  day  Lawrence  and  Mad 
ison  advanced  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  duty  that  the 
Western  people,  paying  less  tax  on  other  articles,  should 
make  up  the  deficiency  on  this  one.  Madison  said  he 
would  make  the  duty  moderate,  however.  Huntington 
expressed  similar  views,  but  White  and  others  referred  to 
the  "  delicacy"  of  the  situation  and  opposed  any  tax  on 
salt.5  After  a  speech  by  Fitzsimons,  in  which  he  affirmed 
that  gentlemen  had  not  proved  that  the  proposed  measure 
was  founded  on  injustice,  but  the  contrary  position  had 
been  established,  the  committee  agreed  to  six  cents,  with 
a  drawback  on  fish  and  salted  provisions.6  In  this  debate 
the  alarmists  were  from  the  Western  districts  and  from 
Southern  States  not  affected  by  the  duty. 

It  were  a  tedious  task  to  notice  all  the  work  of  a  legis 
lative  body  in  originating  a  measure  of  this  kind.     The 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  157. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  158.  8  Ibid.,  p.  159. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  160.  6  Ibid.,  p.  165. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  167. 


44  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

members  from  the  several  States  either  sought  aid  for  new 
manufactures  or  resisted  as  oppressive  that  claimed  by 
The  spirit  of  others.  But  there  was  more  concession  than 
concession.  upon  any  revenue  plan  afterward  which  called 
for  any  considerable  debate.  Window-glass  at  ten  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  was  inserted  to  please  Carroll  and  the 
State  of  Maryland ;  paper,  of  which  Clymer  stated  that 
Pennsylvania  produced  annually  seventy  thousand  reams, 
to  encourage  that  commonwealth  was  awarded  a  duty  of 
seven  and  one-half  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  the  same  rate 
without  discussion  was  agreed  to  on  the  following  articles  : 
Canes,  whips,  ready-made  clothing,  gold,  silver,  and  plated 
Miscellaneous  ware,  jewelry  and  paste  work;  also  upon  cab- 
articies.  jnet  WOrk,  metal  buttons,  saddles,  leather 

gloves,  beaver,  fur,  wool,  or  mixed  hats,  millinery,  leather, 
iron  castings,  slit  or  rolled  iron.  Anchors  and  wrought  tin 
ware  were  added  at  the  rate  of  seven  and  one-half  per 
cent.  Certain  tropical  fruits  and  nuts  were  stricken  out 
of  the  bill.  Fifteen  per  cent,  on  coaches  and  carriages; 
fifty  per  cent,  on  wool  cards ;  fifty  cents  on  every  quintal 
of  fish,  were  some  of  the  duties.1  After  opposition  by 
Madison  and  supporting  speeches  by  Fitzsimons,  Goodhue, 
and  Boudinot,  Fitzsimons's  motion  to  tax  all  teas  imported 
from  China  and  India  in  ships  built  in  the  United  States 
and  belonging  wholly  to  citizens  thereof  according  to  the 
following  rates  passed :  bohea,  six  cents  per  pound ;  sou 
chong  and  other  black  teas,  ten  cents;  superior  green, 
twenty  cents ;  all  others,  ten ;  such  teas  imported  from 
any  other  country  or  from  China  and  India  in  ships  not 
the  property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
Virginia  and  bohea,  ten;  souchong,  etc.,  fifteen;  superior 
Pennsylvania  green,  thirty;  all  others,  eighteen.2  Bland 

antagonized.  '  \  J  9 

and  Parker,  of  Virginia,  favored  a  duty  of 
three  cents  per  bushel  on  coal  to  protect  the  Virginia  col 
lieries,  which  was  opposed  by  Hartley,  of  Pennsylvania, 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  167, 168. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  168-170.     The  bill  as  enacted  contained  several  changes. 


THE    TARIFF— 17 89-1820.  45 

wlio  thought  one  cent  was  sufficient  duty,  as  coal  was  used 
largely  in  manufactures.  The  committee  adopted  three 
cents.1 

On  the  commercial  part  of  the  system,  the  Massachu 
setts  members  having  gone  to  meet  Yice-President  Adams, 
their  absence  was  urged  as  a  reason  why  action  should  be 
deferred  until  their  return.  But  when  three  full  delega 
tions  from  the  Southern  States,  except  one  member,  had 
been  detained  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  this  fact  did 
not  deter  those  who  wished  to  benefit  manufactures  from 
proceeding,  although  a  request  that  no  extreme  action 
should  be  taken  had  been  made  by  the  single  representative 
present  from  the  States  south  of  Virginia. 

On  the  21st  of  April  the  question  of  discrimination  in 
favor  of  American  shipping  was  considered.    Aprii2i. 
The  connate  question  of  discrimination  in  favor    Discrimination 

^  .  .in  favor  of 

of  friendly  and  treaty  nations  was  also  raised.  American  ship- 
The  first  proposition  was  for  a  six  per  cent.  ping> 
duty  per  ton  on  vessels  built  in  the  United  States  and  owned 
by  citizens  of  the  same  and  all  foreign-built  vessels  owned 
by  citizens  of  this  country.  Both  propositions  were  adopted, 
the  latter  after  it  had  been  ably  advocated  by  Madison, 
Fitzsimons,  and  Baldwin.  The  policy  was  opposed  by 
Benson,  Sherman,  and  Lawrence.2  The  tonnage  was  fixed 
at  thirty  cents  on  vessels  belonging  to  friendly  and  fifty 
cents  on  those  owned  wholly  or  in  part  by  the  subjects  of 
other  powers.3 

Complaint  that  the  duties  as  agreed  to  were  too  high 
came  from  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Georgia,  and  South 
Carolina.     Some  of  the  criticisms  referred  only    complaints  of 
to  particular  articles ;  others,  as  Boudinot's,  to    hishduties- 
the  whole  system.4    Lawrence  endorsed  the  latter's  argu 
ment  that  a  high  duty  on  rum  and  other  spirits  and  wines 
instead  of  elevating  morals  would  lower  them  by  promoting 
smuggling;    and  he  favored,  with  Tucker,  Jackson,  and 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  170. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  176-191.  3  Ibid.,  p.  191. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.  192-195. 


46  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

many  others,  a  reduction  of  the  duties.1  This  was  opposed 
by  Fitzsimons  and  Lee.2  Madison  admitted  that  high 
duties  had  a  tendency  to  promote  smuggling,  but  he 
thought  that  Madeira  wines  could  bear  the  duty  imposed. 
Boudinot's  motion  to  reduce  the  rum  duty  to  twelve  cents 
was  lost.  The  discussion  on  the  following  day  took  a  turn 
favorable  to  discrimination  in  favor  of  friendly  nations,  the 
proposition  before  the  House  having  been  to  give  French 
brandy  the  preference  over  rum.3  Madison  led  in  favor  of 
discrimination  and  was  opposed  by  Lowrie.  Fitzsimons 
advocated  a  small  discrimination  only.  The  result  was 
that  the  duty  on  all  spirits,  Jamaica  proof,  imported  from 
nations  in  alliance  should  be  twelve  cents;  on  all  other 
spirits  from  the  same  nations,  ten  cents ;  on  Madeira  wine 
the  duty  was  reduced  from  thirty-three  and  one-third  to 
twenty-five  cents,  and  on  all  other  wines  from  twenty-five 
to  fifteen.*  Shoes  were  reduced,  on  Ames's  motion,  from 
ten  to  seven  cents.  A  principle  of  the  action  on  this  meas 
ure  of  revenue  is  discerned  in  a  remark  of  Madison's.  He 
said,  in  reply  to  Fitzsimons's  proposition  to  increase  the 
duty  on  cables  and  cordage  from  fifty  cents  to  one  dollar, 
because  the  duty  was  fifty  cents  on  hemp,  that  "  it  had  been 
discussed  in  the  committee  and  it  was  then  determined  to 
be  as  necessary  to  promote  agriculture  as  manufactures." 
The  House  decided  finally  upon  Madison's  compromise  at 
seventy-five  cents.5 

The  great  source  of  disagreement  and  a  more  obvious 
Rum  and  mo-  cause  °f  sectional  alignment  than  the  duties  on 
lasses,  section-  hemp  and  cordage  was  the  joint  subject  of  rum 
and  molasses.  At  that  time  the  making  of  and 
traffic  in  rum  was  the  chief  industry  of  New  England.  The 
thrifty  mind  in  that  quarter  of  the  world  was  still  directed 
at  intervals,  as  in  the  days  of  the  first  settlers,  to  the  moral 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  194 
195,  197.     Tucker  advocated  a  reduction  on  rum  to  eight  cents. 

s  Ibid.,  pp.  196,  198.  3  Ibid.,  p.  200  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  p.  207. 

6  Ibid.    The  subject  was  out  of  committee  of  the  whole  and  before 
the  House. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  47 

and  spiritual  welfare,  or,  rather,  lack  of  the  same,  in  the 
surrounding  communities ;  but  its  daily  bent  of  godliness 
was  toward  provision  for  the  elect  in  those  temporal  affairs 
so  essential  if  existence  was  to  be  prolonged.  Molasses 
was  an  article  of  food  or  drink  in  two  ways :  it  was  eaten  or 
drunk  with  coffee  or  tea,  and  it  was  distilled  into  spirits  and 
used  or  exported.  In  the  progress  of  the  House  the  duty 
had  not  yet  been  decided  upon,  because  the  Massachusetts 
members,  who  were  principally  interested,  had  obtained  a 
postponement  in  order  to  enable  them  to  procure  informa 
tion.  Mr.  Goodhue  now  said  that  they  had  been  unsuccess 
ful.  He  and  his  colleague,  Gerry,  supported  a  low  duty, 
in  the  interest,  as  they  maintained,  of  the  poorer  class  of 
consumers.  But  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  argued  that  it  would 
especially  enure  in  favor  of  New  England  rum.1  The 
debate,  continued  on  the  following  day,  became  very  ani 
mated.  The  New  England  argument  was  re-stated  by 
Wadsworth.  It  was  in  brief  that  fisheries  depended  on  the 
molasses  imported,  as  fish  were  exchangeable  in  the  French 
West  Indies  only  for  rum  and  molasses.2  The  proposed 
duty  was  six  cents.  The  New  England  members  sought 
by  various  arguments  to  have  it  reduced.  Thacher  said, 
"  What  would  be  the  opinion  of  gentlemen  from  Virginia 
if  a  member  was  to  propose  a  duty  on  rye,  apples,  and 
peaches  equal  to  six  cents,  and  urge  as  a  reason  that  it  was 
necessary  in  order  to  keep  up  the  ratio  between  whiskey 
and  Jamaica  spirits  ?"  Again :  "  Suppose  a  member  from 
Massachusetts  was  to  propose  an  impost  on  negroes,  what 
would  you  hear  from  Southern  gentlemen  if  fifty  dollars 
was  the  sum  to  be  laid  ?"  He  declared  that  this  was  not 
more  than  the  proportion  proposed  to  be  laid  A  question  of 
on  molasses.  As  to  the  pernicious  effects  of  relative  moral- 
New  England  rum,  he  held  that  there  was  no  lty' 
comparison  with  negro  slavery :  that  is  to  say,  the  rum  was 
so  much  less  injurious,  morally  and  industrially,  than  the 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  209-213. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  214. 


48  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

other — if  the  reader  may  infer  this,  the  obvious  bearing 
of  his  language.1  Ames  boldly  put  his  argument  on  the 
ground  of  protecting  a  New  England  manufacture,  and 
placed  this  manufacture  on  an  equality  with  all  others. 
""We  are  not  to  consider  ourselves  while  here,"  he  as 
serted,  "  as  at  church  or  school  to  listen  to  the  harangues 
of  speculative  piety." 2  Mr.  Ames  indulged  also  in  a  little 
threatening :  "  The  language  of  complaint  will  circulate 
universally  and  change  the  favorable  opinion  now  enter 
tained  to  dislike  and  clamor." 3  This  was  an  offset  to  the 
Western  Pennsylvania  and  Southern  alarms,  uttered  when 
the  salt  duty  was  under  consideration. 

Madison  appears  to  have  replied  to  both  Thacher  and 
Ames.  To  the  former,  waiving  consideration  of  the  lan 
guage  Thacher  had  just  used,  Madison  declared  that  the 
duty  on  molasses  would  no  more  burden  the  East  than  that 
on  sugar  would  the  South.4  In  answer  to  the  last  remark 
of  Ames,  he  asked  if  the  Northern  people  "  were  made  of 
finer  clay  .  .  .  were  they  the  chosen  few?"  He  trusted 
that  the  general  government  would  "  equally  affect  all." 5 
Fitzsimons  ridiculed  the  contention  of  the  New  England 
members  that  the  tax  would  ruin  their  commerce.  "  It  is 
a  tax,"  he  said,  "  of  not  quite  three-quarters  of  a  dollar 
per  man." 6  The  New  England  argument  was  met  by 
Jackson  by  one  of  the  same  kind.  "  What,"  he  inquired, 
" is  to  become  of  the  lumber  of  Georgia?  We  are  obliged 
to  take  rum  in  the  West  Indies  in  exchange  for  our  lumber, 
upon  which  rum  fifteen  cents  a  gallon  duty  is  imposed. 
The  gentlemen  are  not  for  reducing  this." 7 

The  House  refused  to  strike  out  six  cents,  but  agreed  to 

Fitzsimons's  motion,  which  had  been  rejected  in  the  com- 

Ma  mittee  of  the  whole,  to  provide  three  cents  per 

gallon  drawback  on  exported  rum  distilled  in 

the  United    States.     On  the  8th  of  May  the  House  was 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  215. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  222.  3  Ibid.,  p.  225. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  218.                                            5  Ibid.,  p.  227. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  228.                                           7  Ibid.,  p.  230. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820. 

again  in  committee,  a  bill  having  been  reported.1  Tucker 
proposed  to  the  members  from  Massachusetts  a  general  re 
duction  if  they  deemed  that  the  molasses  duty  May8 
as  agreed  upon  bore  too  heavily  upon  their  Tucker's  propo- 
State,  and  he  thought  that  five  per  cent,  ad  emin reduction 
valorem  would  raise  sufficient  revenue  and  af-  to  five  per  cent. 
ford  sufficient  protection  to  manufactures.2  To  make  a 
test  he  moved  to  reduce  the  duty  on  distilled  spirits  six 
cents  per  gallon,  and  was  seconded  by  Jackson.  Ames 
also  advocated  reduction  and  instanced  the  impossibility 
of  preventing  illicit  trade  where  high  taxes  were  imposed, 
even  in  countries  having  more  experience  and  a  "  more 
nervous  executive."  He  asked  how  they  expected  to  raise 
forty  per  cent,  in  the  first  instance.3  Madison  deprecated 
ably  and  temperately  the  proposed  reduction,  contending 
that  the  rates  agreed  on  in  committee  were  reasonable  and 
necessary  if  it  was  desired  to  avoid  laying  excises  and 
direct  taxes,  which  no  gentleman  proposed.4  The  debate 
showed  that  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  were  joined  by 
Massachusetts  and  a  part  of  Virginia  in  wishing  to  retain 
the  old  system  of  a  few  enumerated  articles  and  a  general 
duty  of  five  per  cent.5  Eland's  expectation  of  raising 
thirteen  millions  revenue  out  of  the  system  was  thought 
by  Fitzsimons  to  be  too  high.  The  argument  that  a  high 
duty  would  not  produce  greater  revenue  was  advanced  by 
several  speakers,  and  Ames  contended  for  duties  so  low  as 
to  prevent  smuggling  and  at  the  same  time  raise  a  larger 
revenue.6  Jackson  conceded  that  revenue  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  morals  of  a  people.7  Lawrence  advocated  low 
duties,  but  Goodhue  would  reduce  but  slightly.  Madison 
said  that  the  duties  had  been  imposed  to  favor  the  interests 
of  New  England  manufactures.8  The  House  refused  to 

1  A  committee  of  three  to  prepare  a  bill  had  been  appointed  on  the 
28th  of  April. — Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Ses 
sion,  p.  231. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  295.  8  Ibid.,  p.  298.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  300-303. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  303.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  308,  310,  312. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  314.  8  Ibid.,  p.  315. 

4 


50  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

strike  out  the  duty  of  twelve  cents  on  all  spirits  Jamaica 
proof.1  The  New  England  members,  while  insisting  upon 
The  New  Eng-  a  reduction  on  molasses,  were,  with  one  or  two 
land  attitude,  exceptions,  not  much  disposed  to  press  for  a 
general  reduction.2  Madison,  in  reply  to  their  arguments, 
said  that  a  tax  on  molasses  would  not  be  more  unpopular 
than  one  on  salt,  yet  the  committee  did  not  forego  a  pro 
ductive  fund  because  the  article  was  a  necessary  of  life 
and  in  general  consumption.  He  thought  that  the  citizens 
of  the  Southern  States  had  more  right  to  complain  of  the 
oppressions  of  government  than  others,  if  there  was  the 
disposition  to  do  so  that  had  been  represented.  The  sys 
tem  could  only  be  acceptable  to  them,  he  declared,  because 
it  was  essentially  necessary  to  be  adopted  for  the  public 
good.3 

Molasses  The  committee  substituted  five  for  six  cents 

reduced.  ag  ^  <juty  on  molasses,  and  here  the  matter 

rested. 

On  May  4  the  subject  of  tonnage  and  discrimination  in 
favor  of  Americans  and  friendly  nations  was  resumed  in 
Discrimination  the  House.  New  York  and  ISTew  England 
in  favor  of  were  opposed  to,  the  South  and  Pennsylvania 
friendly  na-  in  favor  of  the  duty.  Madison  led  the  affirma 
tive  side,  Lawrence  the  negative.  Jackson 
favored  a  moderate  duty.  The  duty  was  sustained  by  the 
argument  that  it  was  necessary  for  national  security.4  Fitz- 
simons  showed  that  two-thirds  of  the  tonnage  was  Amer 
ican.5  Against  the  argument  t*hat  Great  Britain  would 
make  reprisals,  Madison  retorted  that  she  could  not,  be 
cause  she  used  American  tobacco,  not  one-tenth  of  which 
she  herself  consumed.6  Southern  members  enlarged  on  the 
dangers  of  high  tonnage  to  their  section :  the  reply  was 
that  the  retention  of  the  duty  was  necessary  as  an  encour 
agement  of  American  navigation.7  Burke,  of  South  Caro- 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  318. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  324  et  seq.  3  Ibid.,  p.  331. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  237.  6  Ibid.,  p.  240. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  246.  T  Ibid.,  pp.  251-253. 


THE    TARIFF— 1789-1820.  51 

lina,  denied  that  the  South  was  jealous  of  New  England 
shipping.  He  believed  that  the  citizens  generally  of  the 
Southern  States  looked  with  indignation  at  the  powers 
which  foreigners  had  over  their  commerce.1  Nevertheless, 
the  South  spoke  for  low  tonnage.  The  discus 
sion  continued  on  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  of  May.  iow  tonnage. 
Upon  the  motion  of  Smith  to  reduce  tonnage  The  House,  re' 

,        -  -       .  1V  -7i       fu«es  to  reduce. 

on  vessels  of  foreign  countries  in  alliance  with 
the  United  States  from  thirty  to  twenty  cents,  South  Caro 
lina  and  Georgia  advocated  and  Northern  speakers  opposed 
the  proposition.  After  a  long  debate  the  House  refused  to 
reduce.2  On  the  7th  of  May  South  Carolina  urged  and 
Pennsylvania  resisted  the  reduction  of  tonnage  on  foreign- 
owned  vessels.  Madison  proposed  to  reduce  from  fifty  to 
forty  cents  and  to  increase  to  seventy-five  cents  at  the  end 
of  two  years,  which  Tucker  feared  was  too  short  a  time.3 
It  was  in  this  debate  that  Burke  said  that  the  people  of 
South  Carolina,  although  rich  in  lands  and  servants,  were 
"  universally  in  debt." 4  Madison  was  very  happy  to  find 
that  differences  on  the  question  were  not  prescribed  by  the 
geographical  situation  of  the  country.5  The  proposition  of 
Madison  having  been  rejected,  the  original  proposition  was 
agreed  to.6  On  the  same  day  a  committee  consisting  of 
three  members  was  appointed  to  report  a  bill  or  bills  on  the 
subject  of  tonnage. 

When  the  revenue  measure  was  again  before  the  House, 
and  on  May  13,  China  and  earthenware,  brushes       Ma 
and  looking-glasses,  were  added  at  seven  and 
one-half  per  cent.     But  a  more  important  article  was  to 
form  the  leading  topic  of  the  day's  debate.7 

-ni  *  ir»      •    •  J    j.      •  *.  i  A  Virginian 

Parker,  of  Virginia,  moved  to  insert  a  clause       proposes    to 
imposing  a  duty  of  ten  dollars  on  each  slave       tax  imported 

^      ,          J  ,.  slaves., 

imported,  that  gave  rise  to  a  discussion,  the 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  256. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  281.  3  Ibid.,  p.  282  et  seq. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  285.  6Ibid. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  290.  7Ibid.,  p.  336. 


52  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

heads  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  another  volume.1     The 
motion  was  finally  withdrawn.2 

The  tariff  bill  was  ordered  to  engrossment  and  third 
reading  on  the  14th  of  May.  A  drawback  of 
ten  per  cent,  on  all  goods  imported  in  American 
vessels  owned  and  navigated  according  to  law  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States  had  been  allowed.3  The  bill  was  again 
in  committee  on  the  following  day,  when  it  was  amended 
and  reported.  There  was  an  elaborate  debate 
in  the  House  on  the  15th  and  16th  of  May 
upon  a  motion  by  Madison  to  limit  the  time  of  the  continu 
ance  of  the  measure.  A  bare  outline  may  not  give  a  defi 
nite  idea  of  this  discussion;  but  as  it  shows  the  general 
notion  of  the  time  on  the  subject,  and  as  their  action  was 
to  be  cited  afterwards  as  a  precedent,  it  is  deemed  best  to 
state  the  more  general  facts.  Ames  doubted  the  propriety 
of  the  motion.  Fitzsimons  did  not  know  whether  he 
wished  a  term  of  years  or  a  general  declaration  that  the 
act  should  continue  during  the  public  wants.4  Lee  desired 
three  or  five  years  as  the  limit ;  White  thought  that  the 
Constitution  limited  revenue  as  well  as  appropriation  bills 
to  two  years ;  Livermore  favored  a  short  limit ;  Sinnickson, 
Boudinot,  Lawrence,  and  Ames  contended  that  it  would 
injure  public  credit ; 5  Madison  pointed  out  the  danger  that 
the  President  and  one-third  of  either  house  could  defeat  a 
repeal,  however  necessary ; 6  Gerry  argued  that  one  or  two 
years  was  enough ; 7  Huntington  that  seven  or  ten  would 
be,  and  Bland,  Smith,  and  Page  favored  the  motion  to 
limit  the  continuance.  Fitzsimons  said  that  the  noise 
made  over  the  public  credit  tended  to  lower  it.8  Having 
modified  his  original  proposition,  Madison  moved  that  the 

act  should  not  continue  in  force  after  the  —  day  of , 

unless  otherwise  provided  in  the  act  for  the  appropriation 

1  Chapter  on  Slavery  before  1820. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  342. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  343.  *  Ibid.,  p.  344. 
5  Ibid.,  pp.  346-348,  354.  6  Ibid.,  p.  347. 
7  Ibid.,  pp.  349-351,  354.                           8  Ibid.,  p.  365. 


THE    TARIFF — 17 89-1820.  53 

of  the  revenue.1     On  a  division  of  the  question  the  excep 
tion  was  not  adopted,  but  the  first  part  was     The  tariff  bm 
carried  by  a  vote  of  forty-one  to  eight.     The     passes  the 
blank  was  filled  with  June  1,  1796.     The  bill 
then  passed  the  House.2 

On  the  18th  of  May  the  tariff  bill  was  read  in  the  Senate, 
and  considered  on  the  25th,  28th,  and  29th  of    May  is-June  s. 
May  and  on  June  1-5  and  8.     On  the  latter    m  the  senate. 
day  a  committee  was  appointed,  consisting  of  Ellsworth, 
Morris,  Lee,  Butler,  and  Dalton,  to  consider  and  report 
upon  the  expediency  of  adding  a  clause  prohibiting  the 
importation  of  goods  from  India  or  China  in  ships  or  vessels 
other  than  those  belonging  to  citizens  of  the    Junelo  n 
United  States.     The  bill  was  further  discussed    BUI    amended 
on  the  10th  and  llth  of  June,  on  the  latter  of    in  the  Senate- 
which  days  the  measure  was  concurred  in  with  amend 
ments.3 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  364. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  366. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  38,  45,  46.  For  the  Senate  debates  in  outline  see  Senator 
Maclay' s  Private  Journal  for  May,  1789,  edited  by  his  son.  Maclay  was 
a  busy  protectionist  who  thought  that  he  foresaw  that  if  Pennsylvania 
would  let  molasses  in  at  a  low  rate  the  New  England  States  would  allow 
stiff  rates  of  duty  on  other  things.  Lee  and  Grayson,  of  Virginia,  he 
says,  were  opposed  to  the  whole  plan  of  the  bill,  and  the  former  wished 
for  an  excise  in  place  of  a  customs  tax.  Maclay  complains  of  the  late 
date  at  which  the  bill  was  introduced.  He  wanted  a  large  number  of 
articles  raised  from  seven  and  one-half  per  cent.,  because  the  duty  under 
Pennsylvania  protection  had  been  twelve,  and  he  feared  that  it  would 
afford  ground  to  the  opposers  of  the  impost  to  secure  a  reduction  all 
around. — Private  Journal,  June  2. 

"I  was,  as  usual,  opposed  by  the  Southern  people.  Before  I  rose  I 
spoke  to  Mr.  Morris  [Pennsylvania]  to  rise  and  move  an  augmentation. 
He  said  '  No.'  Mr.  Few,  of  Georgia,  asserted  that  the  manufacturers  of 
Pennsylvania  would  be  better  off  under  the  seven  and  one-half  than 
they  had  been  under  the  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent.  Mr.  Morris  got 
up  and  asserted  the  same  thing.  I  declare  I  could  not  believe  either  one 
of  them."  He  says,  however,  that  Morris  stated  that  paper  manufacture 
was  in  the  most  flourishing  condition  imaginable  in  Pennsylvania- — 
Ibid. 

In  his  entry  for  June  11,  1789,  the  tariff  being  under  discussion  and 
drawbacks  being  the  item  before  the  Senate,  Maclay  says  that  Izard  and 


54  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

The  House  on  the  16th  of  June  agreed  to  certain  Senate 
amendments,  one  of  which  was  to  add  a  duty  of  three 
June  16.  cents  a  pound  on  cotton ;  another  was  to  strike 

in  the  House.  ou^  ^he  drawback  of  five  cents  on  spirits  dis 
tilled  from  molasses  in  the  United  States  and  exported. 
The  Senate  extended  the  discount  of  ten  per  cent,  on  im 
ported  goods  in  vessels  built  and  owned  to  goods  imported 
in  vessels  not  built  but  owned  in  the  United  States  on  the 
16th  of  May  last  and  so  continued  until  the  time  of  im 
portation.1  On  the  23d  of  June,  after  debate,  the  House 
refused  by  a  majority  of  two  to  concur  in  striking  out  the 
discriminating  clause  in  favor  of  treaty  nations,  and  on  the 
following  day  a  committee  of  conference  was  ordered.2 
Jul  1  The  attendance  upon  this  committee  broke  the 

The  House  session  of  the  House  for  one  day.3  The  debate 
fcfof  discriS-  on  the  27th  showed  that  the  advocates  of  dis- 
ination  m  favor  crimination  were  weakening.  A  motion  to 

of    treaty    na-  --1^10  i      -  t  -±     A. 

tions,  and  the    agree  with  the  Senate  was  lost  by  one  majority.4 

bin  becomes  a   Finally,  on  July  1,  after  a  further  conference, 

the  Senate  still  insisting  on  its  amendment,  the 

House  yielded  by  a  vote  of  concurrence  of  thirty-one  to 

Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  opposed  all  drawbacks  whatever.  "Butler 
flamed  away  and  threatened  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  with  regard  to 
his  State  '  as  sure  as  God  was  in  the  firmament. '  He  scattered  his  re 
marks  over  the  whole  impost  bill,  calling  it  partial,  oppressive,  etc.,  and 
solely  calculated  to  oppress  South  Carolina,  and  yet  ever  and  anon 
declaring  how  clear  of  local  views  he  was.  He  degenerated  into  mere 
declamation."  Again  this  quaint  old  Democratic  chronicler  proceeds  to 
•exploit  local  views :  * '  The  Senators  from  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  and  Maryland  in  every  act  seemed  desirous  of  making  the 
impost  productive  both  as  to  revenue  and  effective  for  the  encouragement 
of  manufactures,  and  seemed  to  consider  the  whole  of  the  imposts  (salt 
excepted)  much  too  low.  Articles  of  luxury  many  of  them  would  have 
raised  one-half.  But  the  members  from  the  North,  and  still  more  par 
ticularly  from  ihe  South,  were  ever  in  a  flame  when  any  articles  were 
brought  forward  that  were  in  any  considerable  use  among  them." — Ibid. 
While  there  is  much  prejudice  in  Maclay's  Private  Journal,  it  throws 
light  on  obscure  places  in  our  history,  and  is  very  interesting  reading. 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  455. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  590,  591.  3  Ibid.,  p.  607.    June  26. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  610. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  55 

nineteen.  The  vote  was  not  sectional,  and  Madison  stood 
out  to  the  last  in  favor  of  his  discriminating  policy.1  The 
President  signed  the  bill  on  the  4th  of  July,  and  thus  was 
perfected  the  first  tariff  measure  of  the  United  States. 

On  April  21,  as  we  have  seen,  the  question  of  tonnage 
had  arisen.2    It  was  considered  in  committee  of  the  whole 
on  May  18 ;  the  bill  was  read  a  second  time  in      April  21. 
the  House  and  recommitted  on  the  26th  of      Tonnage. 
May,  and  was  debated  and  amended  on  the  succeeding  day 
and  further  discussed  at  other  sittings.     The  question  of 
discrimination  entered  largely  into  these  discussions.     A 
committee  was  appointed  on  June  13  to  prepare  a  new  bill.3 
Such  a  measure  was  reported  on  the  29th  of     jUne  13, 29 ; 
June.     After  a  long  debate  amendments  were     July  3L 
reported,  and  the  bill  passed  on  the  31st  of  July.4    It  was 
amended  by  the  Senate,  but  the  House  agreed  to  these 
amendments.5     A  bill  for  registering  coast  trade  vessels 
also  passed  at  this  session,  and  the  session  was  not  without 
other  legislation  touching  the  revenue.6 

The  first  Ways  and  Means  Committee  was  appointed  on 
July  27  on  motion  of  Fitzsimons.     It  consisted  of  Fitz- 
simons,  Vining,  Livermore,  Cadwalader,  Law-    The  first  Wa  g 
rence,  Wadsworth,  Jackson,  Smith,  of  Mary-    and  Means 
land,  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Madison. 
As  the  revenue  bill  had  passed,  its  first  duty  was  to  pre 
pare  estimates  of  supplies  for  the  service  of  the  United 
States — otherwise   the   appropriation  bill  for  the   current 
year.7 

At  the  second  session  of  the  First  Congress  a  number 
of  measures  on  the  subject  of  the  revenue  engage  our  at 
tention.  The  memorials  and  report  upon  slave  importa 
tions  are  treated  of  under  the  head  of  slavery  in  another 
chapter.  An  additional  revenue  bill  was  proposed,  with 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  610. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  176-191.    A  bill  was  introduced  on  that  day. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  367,  409,  410,  418-420,  451,  453. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  611,  619,  621,  673.  5  Ibid.,  p.  892. 
6  Ibid.,  pp.  676,  795,  912.  7  Ibid.,  p.  670. 


56  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

duties  chiefly  on  wines  and  spirits.1  It  was  lost  after  an 
extended  debate.2 

The  President  having  called  the  attention  of  Congress 
to  the  subject,  Sherman  observed  that  the  proposition  in 
the  federal  convention  to  found  a  national  university  to 
promote  science  and  literature  was  negatived  because  it 
was  thought  to  be  sufficient  that  the  States  should  exercise 
the  powerx  Page  favored  discussing  the  matter,  and  if  it 
was  found  not  to  be  constitutional  he  was  for  proposing  an 
amendment  to  make  it  so.3  The  subject  was,  however, 
dropped. 

The  topic  of  duties  on  foreign  tonnage,  one  of  the  most 
disputed  points  of  that  era,  again  arose  for  debate  on  the 
Duties  on  for-  10th  of  May.  It  was  upon  a  report  on  a  peti- 
eign  tonnage,  tion  from  New  Hampshire,  asking  an  increase 

New     England  .  r  .       .  «      •.! 

and  south  car-  of  the  duties  on  foreign  shipping,  bmith  com- 
olina-  plained  that  this  would  be  unjust  to  South 

Carolina.4  While  he  was  disposed  to  encourage  navigation 
and  ship-building,  he  would  not  do  so  at  the  expense  of 
agricultural  interests.  South  Carolina  was  bound  to  em 
ploy  foreign  shipping.  The  New  England  or  navigating 
States  paid  six  cents  on  their  vessels,  while  the  foreign 
vessels  paid  fifty  cents'.  He  contended  that  this  discrimina 
tion  was  great  enough.  Besides,  he  continued,  time  enough 
had  not  elapsed  to  see  the  effects  of  previous  legislation. 
Jackson,  of  Georgia,  also  opposed  doubling  the  duty.5  The 
argument  on  the  other  side  was  conducted  by  Goodhue  and 
Sherman,  from  New  England,  and  Williamson,  of  North 
Carolina.6  The  debate  was  continued  on  the  llth,  12th, 
and  14th  of  May.  Madison  brought  in  his  hobby  of  dis 
crimination,  and  Fitzsimons  changed  his  position  in  regard 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  1548, 
1551. 

2  Considered  in  committee  of  the  whole  June  8,  9, 11, 14, 18,  21.    It  re 
pealed  some  duties  and  levied  others.    The  vote  was,  ayes,  23  ;  noes,  35. 
—Ibid.,  pp.  1634-1643. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1551.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1558. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  1562.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1560. 


THE    TARIFF—  1789-1820.  57 

to  the  policy,  opposing  it.  The  resolution  was  amended. 
Madison  and  other  Virginia  members  advocated  discrimina 
tion  against  Great  Britain  ;  Northern  and  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  representatives  opposed.  The  House  decided 
to  raise  the  tonnage  on  foreign-built  vessels  from  countries 
not  in  commercial  treaty  with  the  United  States  to  one 
dollar,  and  not  to  permit  such  vessels  to  export  unmanu 
factured  articles,  the  growth  of  this  country,  from  the 
United  States.  But  there  was  a  provision  in  favor  of  ves 
sels  of  nations  which  permitted  the  importation  of  fish, 
salted  provisions,  grain,  and  lumber  in  United  States  ves 
sels.1  A  bill  in  accordance  with  these  principles  was  pre 
pared  by  Madison,  Sedgwick,  and  Hartley,  the 
special  committee  on  the  subject,  was  debated 
two  days,  and  passed  on  the  24th  of  June.2 

A  bill  to  provide  a  discriminating  duty  on  foreign  ton 
nage  was  discussed  in  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  25th, 
the  29th,  and  30th  of  June.3  Finally,  after  two  of  his 
propositions  had  been  modified  and  the  remaining  clauses 
disagreed  to,  Madison  gave  up  the  contest  for  the  principle 
of  discrimination  and  substituted  for  the  propo- 

,.,  P  -i     -,  ••  n         Madison    gives 

sitions  which  enforced   it  two  provisions   for    up  the  contest 


reciprocity.     Their  purpose  was  to  meet  such    for 

,•*-••  •  •    •  tion  and  advo- 

regulations  of  foreign  countries  as  were  inim-    cates   a   reci- 
ical  to  the  United  States  with  counter  regula-    Procity    meas- 

,  °  ure. 

tions.     Jackson  opposed  even  this,  but  it  was 
carried  in  committee.     A  bill  for  the  collection  of  duties 
was  reported  in  the  House  on  July  8.     After  debate,  it 
passed  the  House  on  the  17th  of  July.4 

Bills  from  the  House  imposing  duties  on  tonnage  and  to 
amend  the  tonnage  bill  passed  the  Senate  July  12  and  27.5 

A  proposition  to  extend  aid  in  the  form  of  a  loan  of 
eight  thousand  dollars  to  a  Maryland  glass  manufacturer 
was  reported  favorably,  but  was  rejected  by  the  House  at 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  1581. 
'  Ibid.,  pp.  1581,1647.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  1653,  1655,  1657. 

<  Ibid.,  pp.  1673,  1681,  1683.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  1006,  1019. 


58  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

this  session.  In  the  discussion  upon  it  all  of  the  Southern 
members,  except  those  from  Maryland,  spoke  in  opposition  : 
Sherman  also  opposed  it.1  This  petition  was  presented  in 
the  Second  Congress.2 

At  the  third  session  of  the  First  Congress  a  bill  repealing 
the  former  act  which  provided  a  duty  on  distilled  spirits 
was  reported  on  the  30th  of  December,  1790,  and  was 
almost  continuously  discussed  in  committee  of  the  whole 
until  January  13,  when  it  was  reported  to  the  House  for 
action.  Here  it  was  debated  for  more  than  a  week,  and 
passed  on  the  27th  of  January  by  a  vote  of  thirty-five  to 
twenty-one.  Madison,  Lawrence,  Sherman,  Livermore, 
Excise  on  dis-  Sedgwick,  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  Giles, 
tmed  spirits.  Stone,  and  Fitzsimons  advocated  the  bill,  al 
though  Stone  had  some  objection  to  that  mode  of  raising 
revenue;  Jackson,  Parker,  Steele,  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Bloodworth  opposed  the  measure,  some  of  them  especially 
on  account  of  the  excise,  which  was  its  leading  principle. 
Fitzsimons  having  remarked  that  the  Southern  States  did 
not  pay  their  proportion  of  the  impost,  Madison  showed 
that  the  trade  of  the  South  was  carried  on  by  the  Eastern 
and  Northern  States,  the  consumption  of  the  Southern 
States  was  proportioned  to  the  numbers  of  their  inhabitants, 
and  that  in  this  way  they  bore  their  full  proportion  of  the 
public  burdens.3 

This  spirits  bill  was  considered  and  amended  in  the  Sen 
ate  to  require  five  per  cent,  on  the  product  of  duties  on 
distilled  spirits.  The  House  amended  this  amendment  by 
changing  the  duty  to  seven  per  cent.  After  a  conference 
between  the  houses  the  final  arrangement  was  on  the  basis 
of  the  House  proposition  as  to  duty  and  the  Senate's  amend 
ment  as  to  time  of  operation.4 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  1630- 
1632. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Second  Congress,  vol.  iii.  p.  247.  * 

3  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  First  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  1838, 
1844-1884. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  1755,  1764,  1964,  1966,  1971. 


THE    TARIFF— 1789-1820.  59 

The  report  of  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the 
subject  of  manufactures,  made  to  the  second  Congress,  was 
the  principal  event  of  that  time  connected  with 

Second       Con- 

the  topics  discussed  in  the  present  chapter.     Its    gress.    Hamii- 
points  are  too  numerous  and  its  volume  is  too    ton's  Jep°rt  on 

manufactures. 

great  for  condensation  here.  Hamilton  sought 
to  overthrow  Jefferson's  ideas  upon  the  supremacy  of  agricul 
ture.  In  this  famous  document  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  while  not  holding  that  manufactures  are  positively 
more  productive  than  agriculture,  states  that  they  augment 
the  produce  and  revenue  of  society  in  seven  ways,  namely : 
"  1.  The  division  of  labor.  2.  An  extension  of  the  use  of 
machinery.  3.  Additional  employment  to  classes  of  the 
community  not  ordinarily  engaged  in  the  business.  4.  The 
promoting  of  emigration  from  foreign  countries.  5.  The 
furnishing  greater  scope  for  the  diversity  of  talents  and 
dispositions  which  discriminate  men  from  each  other.  6. 
The  affording  a  more  ample  and  various  field  for  enter 
prise.  7.  The  creating  in  some  instances  a  new  and  se 
curing  in  all  a  more  certain  and  steady  demand  for  the 
surplus  produce  of  the  soil." l 

In  the  third  Congress  Madison  introduced,  on  the  3d  of 
January,  1794,  a  set  of  resolutions  declaring  the  necessity 
for  higher  duties.     They  were  aimed  at  foreign    1794. 
nations — chiefly   Great  Britain — for  making   Januarys. 

*  .  More   discrimi- 

regulations  unfavorable  to  American  commerce  nation  resoiu- 
and  manufactures.  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  tions- 
opposed  and  Madison  upheld  these  resolves.  The  debate 
lasted  almost  continuously  until  February  5,  when  the  sub 
ject  was  postponed.  It  was  resumed  on  March  14,  and  on 
the  17th  of  April  the  resolutions  were  adopted.  These 
embargo  measures  have  only  a  general  connection  with  the 
tariff,  and  it  is,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  treat  them  fully. 
They  are  an  important  part  of  the  general  political  history 
of  the  country  and  are  of  special  interest  to  historians  of 
the  second  war  with  Great  Britain.  Supplementary  acts 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Second  Congress,  vol.  iii.  p.  971  et  seq. 


60  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

laying  duties  on  special  articles  were  passed  by  the  third 
and  succeeding  Congresses.1 

The  subject  of  a  direct  tax  came  up  in  the  fourth  Con 
gress  in  a  discussion  in  the  committee  of  the  whole  upon 
a  report  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.2 

Fourth     Con-  .-.  .  .  . , .  , 

gress.  Direct  At  the  ensuing  session  a  proposition  was  sub- 
tax  on  land  mitted  by  Coit  providing  for  a  plan  to  be  re 
ported  by  the  Committee  on  Commerce  and 
Manufactures  for  a  direct  tax  upon  land  and  slaves.  A 
debate  on  this  subject  lasted  from  the  13th  to  the  20th  of 
January,  1797,  at  which  latter  date  the  Ways  and  Means 
such  a  bin  Committee  were  ordered  to  prepare  a  bill.3  On 
passes  the  fifth  February  14  the  House  rejected  a  motion  to 
send  bills  on  the  subject  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole,  having  devolved  the  duty  on  another  committee.4 


1  The  general  references  here  are  as  follows  :  Annals  of  Third  Congress, 
pp.  157,  174-209,  209-225,  226-235,  244  et  seq.,  256-432,  598— all  these  for 
discriminating  or  embargo  resolutions  ;  for  final  passage  of  supplement 
ary  act  above  referred  to,  1242,  and  for  the  act  itself,  page  1472.     An  ad 
ditional  bill  for  the  collection  of  duties  was  enacted  at  the  first  session 
of  the  fourth  Congress  (vol.  v.  of  Annals,  pp.  105,  2289).     Some  of  the 
special  bills  are  indicated  below,  with  the  dates  of  their  passage  :    On 
licenses  for  sale  of  foreign  wines  and  distilled  spirits  (fifth  Congress,  July 
5,  1797,  Annals,  vol.  vii.  p.  36) ;  additional  duty  on  salt  passed  at  same 
session  (July  6,  ibid.,  p.  37)  ;  a  bill  for  the  protection  of  trade  passed 
the  Senate  by  sixteen  to  thirteen  (fifth  Congress,  Annals,  p.  22)  and  was 
reported  in  the  House  December  26,  1797  ;  amendatory  act  of  the  seventh 
Congress  for  collection  of  duties,  April  15,  20,  1802  (Annals,  vol.  xi.  pp. 
1191,  1155)  ;  act  for  imposing  more  specific  duties  (eighth  Congress,  first 
session,  finally  passed  March  27, 1804,  Annals,  pp.  34,  1242).    An  act  for 
additional  duties  passed  the  House  in  the  tenth  Congress,  but  failed  in 
the  Senate  (Annals,  pp.  454,  1448).     Sawyer's  proposition  for  a  com 
mittee  on  manufactures  refused  in  the  eleventh  Congress  (Annals,  p. 
717),  December  12,  1809.    Additional  duties  act  passed  twelfth  Congress, 
June  29,  1812  (Annals,  vols.  xxiii.,  xxiv.  pp.  308,  2338).     The  House 
bill  amending  act  laying  duties  on  bank-notes  was  lost  in  the  Senate  in 
the  thirteenth  Congress  (Annals,  pp.  683,  1244). 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  pp.  841-856.    In  this  discussion  Gallatin 
denounced  the  public  debt  as  a  public  curse,  and  was  rebuked  for  it  by 
Dayton. 

»  Ibid.,  pp.  1857,  1942. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2164. 


THE    TARIFF—  1789-1820.  61 

In  the   fifth  Congress  a  bill   providing  for   a 

1798     July  12 

direct  tax  passed  both  houses  July  12,  1798.1 

The  bill  to  incorporate  the  Mine  and  Metal  Company 
was  defeated  on  its  third  reading  in  the  Senate    180i.    January 
March  2,  1801.2     It  had  on  the  30th  of  January    30-  March2- 
passed  the  House  as  amended  by  a  vote  of  fifty  to  forty-  four.3 
In  the  first  session  of  the  seventh  Congress  a  pungent 
debate  took  place  in  the  Senate  on  the  propo 
sition  to  reduce  duties  on  coffee,  tea,  and  com-    gresT  The  tar- 


mon  sugar,  which,  it  was  argued  by  Rutledge    iff  becomes  a 

=  /  party  question. 

and  Bayard,  were  necessary  articles  to  the  poor. 
This  was  denied  by  Southard.  Randolph,  Smilie,  Clai- 
borne,  Giles,  and  Samuel  Smith  were  prominent  in  opposi 
tion,  and  it  was  charged  by  Davis  that  the  Federal  party 
had  changed  ground,  as  those  who  favored  reduction  had 
formerly  laid  these  taxes.  The  Ways  and  Means  Com 
mittee  were  directed  to  report  on  impost  and  tonnage 
duties,  but  resolutions  of  particular  instruction  to  that 
committee  were  rejected.  The  matter  had  become  a  party 
question.4 

As  the  act  providing  additional  duties,  levied  by  the 
twelfth  Congress,  was  a  war  measure  and  was  Twelfth  Con 
to  continue  in  force  one  year  only  after  the  gress.  A  war 
conclusion  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  it  might  well 
be  passed  over  except  for  its  connection  with  the  tariff 
legislation  of  a  later  day.  It  finally  passed  the  Senate  on 
the  29th  of  June,  1812.5  This  act  imposed 

...   .    -^  1812.    June  29. 

one  hundred  per  cent,  additional  to  the  per 

manent  duties  previously  imposed  and  ten  per  cent,  addi 
tional  to  that  upon  imports  in  vessels  not  of  the  United 
States.  An  additional  tonnage  duty  of  one  dollar  and  fifty 
cents  per  ton  was  also  imposed  on  such  vessels. 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Fifth  Congress,  p.  609. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Sixth  Congress,  vol.  x.  p.  758. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  989. 

4  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Seventh  Congress,  vol.  xi.  pp.  434- 
447,  461. 

5  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  vols.  xxiii.,  xxiv.  pp.  308,  2338. 


62  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Direct  tax  and  The  thirteenth  Congress  passed  a  bill  pro- 
internal  duties.  viding  for  a  direct  tax  and  internal  duties.1 

The  fourteenth  Congress  came  immediately  after  some 
Fourteenth  remarkable,  and  it  preceded  one  or  two  very 
congress.  distinguished,  national  legislatures.  In  the 

personnel  and  work  of  the  fourteenth  Congress  we  shall 
iind  as  much  that  is  commanding  as  in  any  American 
Congress  whatever.  Elected  at  the  close  of  a  harassing 
and  mostly  unsatisfactory  war,  its  duties  were  neither  few 
nor  light.  The  whole  financial  and  commercial  status  of 
the  country  was  to  be  adjusted  anew  to  the  changed  situa 
tion  of  affairs.  To  order  the  machinery  of  government  so 
as  to  interfere  with  no  industry  and  at  the  same  time  to  do 
equal  justice  to  all  portions  of  the  Union;  to  assist  the 
work  of  restoring  normal  business  and  not  to  give  a  wrench 
here  or  a  jar  there  where  the  abnormal  had  entered  most 
largely ;  to  regulate  and  not  to  destroy  or  re-create  com 
merce,  and  to  produce  by  legislation  no  unfavorable  change 
in  the  new  system  of  manufactures  which  had  sprung  up 
during  the  war  and  the  previous  stormy  period  of  embargoes, 
— these  were  the  obligations  affecting  the  economies  of  the 
United  States.  But  there  was  as  much  delicacy  required, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  chapter  on  the  United  States  Bank  in 
a  subsequent  volume,  in  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the 
currency.  The  question  of  internal  improvements,  too,  we 
shall  find,  pressed  with  scarcely  less  force  than  and  de 
manded  as  statesmanlike  consideration  as  either  of  the 
others. 

The  first  measure  of  revenue  which  was  enacted  by  this 
ISM.  House-  Congress  was  one  repealing  the  duty  on  house 
hold  furniture,  ^id  furniture.  It  passed  on  the  3d  of  April.2 
A  special  act  to  repeal  duties  on  articles  manufactured  in 
the  United  States  passed  the  House  on  the  3d  of  February.3 
Petitions  for  the  encouragement  of  cotton  manufactures 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  2739.    Approved  August 
2,  1813. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Fourteenth  Congress,  p.  278. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  862. 


THE    TARIFF— 1789-1820.  63 

were   presented   from   Massachusetts,  New   York,  Rhode 
Island,  Maine,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  and  other  States.1 
The  House  passed,  with  Senate  amendments, 
at  this  session  a  bill  to  reduce  direct  taxes  to 
$3,000,000  for  one  year.     The  tax -for  the  current  year  was 
§6,000,000.     For  the  next  fiscal  year  it  was  $5,723,152.25, 
and  for  internal  duties,  $5,963,225.88. 

The  first  step  taken  toward  a  general  revised  tariff  of 
duties  was  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in    1816 
a  plan  and  accompanying  letter  laid  before  the    First  steP  tow- 

I  ards   H  revised 

House  on  the  13th  of  February  and  referred    tariff,  February 
on  the  same  day  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and    13< 
Means.     This  committee,  through  Mr.  Lowndes,  its  chair 
man,  reported  a  bill  on  the  12th  of  March.     Eight  days 
later  this  bill  was  considered  by  sections.2    The  bill  as  re 
ported  proposed  a  duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent. 
ad  valorem  on  both  cotton  and  woollen  manu 
factures  imported.     Strong  moved  to  increase  the  duty  on 
woollen  manufactures  twenty-eight  and  on  cotton  manu 
factures  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent.     This  amend 
ment  brought  up  the  question  of  the  protection  of  domestic 
fabrics.3    Lowndes  replied  to  Strong's  speech  and  defended 
the  action  of  the  committee   in   reporting  a 
smaller  duty  than  that  recommended  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     The  important  debate  of  the 
following  day,  March  21,  is  merely  indicated  in  the  annals 
of  the  Congress.     Strong  withdrew  his  motion,  but  the 
part  relating  to  the  cotton  duty  was  renewed  by  Clay,  who 
subsequently  modified  the  rate  to  thirty  per  cent.     Smith, 
of  Maryland,  replying  to  a  speech  by  Mr.  Clay  in  favor  of 
his  proposition,  stated  some  objections  to  the  bill  and  to 
the  recommendations  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.   Mr. 
Lowndes  answered  Clay's  and  also  Smith's  objections.     It 

1  Found  on  many  pages  of  the  "  Congressional  Annals."  There  were 
also  petitions  from  Kentucky  and  Massachusetts  and  the  city  of  Phila 
delphia  for  the  reduction  of  duties  on  domestic  manufactures. — Pp.  458, 
611. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  1233.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1234. 


64  A  HISTORY  OF    THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

is  said  that  "  he  entered  into  an  ample  and  particular  de 
fence  of  the  system  reported  on  the  subject  by  the  com 
mittee."  Clay's  first  motion  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of 
fifty-one  to  forty-three.1  But  the  Kentuckian  was  not  dis 
couraged.  His  modified  motion  was  urged  with  more 
elaboration  than  the  former  one.  He  discussed  the  general 
question  of  the  expediency  of  protecting  American  manu 
factures.  Robertson  replied  and  defended  the  report  and 
bill.  On  the  22d  of  March  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania,  a 
member  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  made  a  strong 
practical  speech  in  favor  of  out-and-out  protection.  "  The 
revenue,"  he  said,  "  is  only  an  incidental  consideration,  and 
it  ought  not  to  have  any  influence  in  the  decision  upon  the 
proposition  before  the  committee."2  He  considered  the 
bill  as  involving  a  great  principle  of  national  policy,  and 
that  it  was  not  a  mere  contrivance  to  collect  taxes  from  the 
people.  He  contended,  against  the  argument  of  Smith,  of 
Maryland,  that  the  proposed  amendment  would  not  destroy 
the  East  India  trade.  But  he  faced  that  contingency.  "  If 
we  must  be  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  abandoning  our 
manufactures  or  the  East  India  trade,  the  latter,"  in  his 
opinion,  "ought  to  give  way,  because  it  was  the  least  valu 
able  to  the  nation."3  He  combated  as  plausible,  but  not 
founded  in  sound  policy,  the  theory  that  our  encourage 
ment  of  manufactures  ought  to  be  confined  to  fabrics  of 
first  necessity,4  and  denied  that  the  bill  and  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  favored  the  manufactures  of 
the  Northern  and  Middle  States  more  than  those  of  the 
Southern.5  The  bill  proposed,  he  said,  a  duty  of  four 
cents  a  pound  on  sugar,  which  was  more  than  thirty-six 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  cost  of  the  article,  and  yet  it 
was  complained  of  by  the  gentleman  from  Louisiana,  Mr. 
Robertson.  Even  the  paper  that  members  wrote  upon  had 
the  water-mark  of  the  British  crown,  although  it  was 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  p.  1237  ;   House  Journal,   Fourteenth 
Congress,  First  Session. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1240. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1241.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1242.  5  Ibid.,  p.  1244. 


THE    TARIFF— 1789-1830.  65 

manufactured  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  such  was  the 
prejudice  against  home  manufactures.  He  insisted  that  it 
was  the  bounden  duty  of  the  Congress  to  protect  the  in 
dustry  of  the  country  from  such  discouragements.1  After 
Chairman  Lowndes  had  replied  at  length  to  the  cotton  manu- 
arguments  of  Clay  and  Ingham,  Clay's  motion  factures. 
to  make  the  duty  on  cotton  manufactures  thirty  per  cent, 
prevailed  by  a  vote  of  sixty-eight  to  sixty-one.2 

During  this  day's  debate  Smith,  of  Maryland,  presented 
a  statement  showing  from  calculations  on  the  basis  of  the 
proposed  duties  the  advantage  which  the  manufacturer 
would  have  over  the  importer.  On  every  one  hundred 
pounds  sterling  of  cotton  goods,  the  bona  fide  cost  in  Eng 
land,  the  retailer's  cost  would  be  one  hundred  and  forty- 
seven  pounds,  ten  shillings,  or  forty-seven  and  one-half 
per  cent,  in  favor  of  American  manufactures,  besides  the 
price  of  raw  materials.3 

The  motion  of  Smith  to  increase  the  duty  on  iron  sheets, 
rods,  and  bolts  from  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents 

*  Iron.    Sugar. 

to  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  hundred 
weight  having  been  agreed  to,  he  moved  to  tax  loaf  sugar 
eighteen  cents  per  pound.  He  gave  way  to  Huger,  of 
South  Carolina,  who  proposed  to  strike  out  the  proposed 
duty  of  four  cents  per  pound  on  brown  sugar  and  sub 
stitute  two  and  a  half  cents.4  Lowndes  thought  that  the 
duty  in  the  bill  was  even  too  low :  sugar  manufacture  de 
manded  encouragement  as  much  as  any  other.5  But  Shefiey 
contended  that  the  increase  of  the  culture  of  the  article  was 
sufficient  argument  that  it  was  profitable  and  needed  no 
protection.  The  poor  would  suffer  from  the  high  duty.6 
Calhoun  opposed  Huger's  motion,  as  did  Wilde,  but  Mil- 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1246. 

a  It  is  regrettable  that  this  speech  and  some  others  made  during  the 
debate  by  the  illustrious  Carolinian  were  not  preserved.  His  reported 
speeches  on  the  Baldwin  tariff  of  1820  show  that  he  had  a  wonderful 
grasp  of  the  subject. 

8  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1248. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1258.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1262.  «  Ibid. 

5 


66  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

nor,  Pitkin,  and  Pickering  advocated  it.  Pitkin  proposed 
three,  Forsyth  five  cents.  The  latter  protested  with  warmth 
against  what  he  termed  the  injustice  of  taxing  the  South 
Forsyth  and  to  support  the  manufactures  of  the  East  and 
GfaTnnthatC°iJT  yet  ^en^n^  to  ^e  South  any  security  in  re- 
justice  is  done  turn  for  its  manufactures.1  The  committee  of 
to  the  south.  the  whole  negatived  five  cents,  and  Clay  advo 
cated  three  and  a  half,  but  hoped  that  four  would  be  re 
stored.  Gaston,  of  North  Carolina,  opposed  the  duty  and 
earnestly  entreated  the  House  "  to  consider  those  unfortu 
nate  manufacturing  States  which  were  burdened  on  the 
one  hand  to  encourage  the  manufactures  of  the  East  and 
taxed  on  the  other  to  protect  the  products  of  the  South." 2 
By  a  vote  of  sixty-four  to  fifty-eight  the  duty  was  fixed  at 
three  and  a  half  cents. 

The  engrossing  topic  of  the  debates  on  this  tariff  measure 
was  the  duty  on  cotton  manufactures.  Webster  renewed, 
on  the  25th  of  March,  a  motion  he  had  withdrawn  pre 
viously  to  strike  off  the  duty  proposed  by  the  bill  and 
Webster,  clay,  to  substitute  the  following :  "  For  two  years 
and  cotton  next  ensuing  the  30th  of  June  next  a  duty  of 
thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  for  two  years,  to 
commence  at  the  termination  of  the  two  years  last  afore 
said,  a  duty  of  twenty  five  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  after 
the  expiration  of  the  two  years  last  aforesaid  a  duty  of 
twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.'93  Clay  moved  to  amend  the 
amendment  by  inserting  three  years  in  the  first  instance, 
one  in  the  second,  and  to  conform  the  remainder  to  these 
changes.  If  the  amendment  he  offered  prevailed,  said  Mr, 
Clay,  four  years  would  still  reduce  the  duty  to  the  min 
imum  proposed  by  the  original  motion,  and  would  give  to 
our  own  manufactures  an  adequate  protection  at  the  time 
of  the  greatest  difficulty.  Lowndes  assented.  Satisfied 
that  twenty-five  and  even  twenty  per  cent,  was  a  sufficient 
protection  to  the  manufactures  in  question,  he  would  never- 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1263. 
8  Ibid.  5  Ibid.,  p.  1270. 


THE    TARIFF — 1789-1820.  67 

theless  support  the  proposed  motion,  persuaded  that  it 
would  eventually  produce  the  state  of  things  which  he 
thought  was  most  desirable.1  Root,  of  New  York,  opposed 
"  the  graduation  by  which  the  manufacturing  establish 
ments  would  be  sustained  for  two  years  and  then  left  to 
their  fate."  He  claimed  that  a  bounty  in  the  nature  of  a 
monopoly  would  be  given  to  the  manufactures  already 
established.  Ward,  of  Massachusetts,  who  represented 
commercial  interests,  also  said  he  would  encourage  manu 
factures  by  giving  them  a  permanent  support  and  not  a 
bounty  for  a  short  time  which  would  discourage  tempo 
rarily  foreign  importations.2  Webster  was  "  not  prepared 
to  say  that  the  government  was  bound  to  adopt  a  perma 
nent  protection,  or  one  which  would  exclude  those  goods 
already  in  the  country."  He  declared  that  he  was  opposed 
to  a  fluctuating  policy,  and  that  the  object  of  his  motion 
was  to  impose  a  duty  so  moderate  as  to  insure  its  perma 
nency  and  be  still  an  adequate  one.3  Calhoun,  believing 
that  twenty  per  cent,  as  a  permanent  duty  was  Calhoun 
ample  protection,  opposed  Clay's  amendment,  Twenty  per 
which  was  supported  by  Pitkin  on  the  ground  ^t'  DeJjJJ£' 
that  it  held  out  encouragement  to  additional  ample  protec- 
establishments,  and  by  Clay  himself,  who  con 
tended  that  in  three  years  experience  would  enable  Amer 
ican  manufacturers  to  judge  whether  they  could  compete 
with  the  foreign  manufacturers  of  articles  of  necessity.4 
Smith,  of  Maryland,  did  not  think  that  twenty  per  cent, 
was  adequate  protection,  but  he  said  it  would  give  an 
advantage  of  fifty  per  cent,  over  British  manufacturer* 
of  cotton  goods.5  Ross  "wished  not  to  see  one  class  of 
the  community  enslaved  by  another."  Further,  he  ob 
served,  "  there  was  already  great  necessity  for  a  strong 
country  party  to  withstand  the  manufacturing  and 
commercial  parties"  in  the  Congress.6  Clay's  motion  was 


1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  p.  1270. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1271.  8  Ibid.  <  Ibid.,  p.  1272. 

6  Ibid.  •  Ibid.,  p.  1273. 


68  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

rejected  and  Webster's  agreed  to,  the  latter  by  a  large  ma 
jority.1 

Woollen   fabrics   and   imported  books  were   the   chief 
articles  considered  on  March  26.     Lowndes  remarked  con 
cerning  the  former,  and  speaking  with  special  reference  to 
blankets,  that  he  thought  a  decided  present  encouragement 
was  required.     But  all  through  the  discussion 
*  reduc-    on  that  tariff  he  seemed  to  look  to  a  final  re- 


tion  the  correct    Auction,  "that  correct  standard,"  to  quote  his 

standard. 

words,  "which  only  ought  to  be  encouraged 
and  looked  to."2  A  modification  proposed  by  Ingham, 
which  gave  one  more  year  for  the  duty  to  run  on  blankets 
and  woollen  rugs,  prevailed.  Members  from  the  commer 
cial  States,  as  Pickering,  Boot,  and  Ward,  fought  for  a 
discrimination  in  favor  of  the  East  India  trade.3 

Iron  was   seventy-five  cents  per  hundredweight  in  the 

bill,  but  Webster  secured  a  reduction  to  forty- 

Webster  secures     „  mi  .  . 

a  reduction  of   five  cents.     The  vote  on  this  item  was  sixty- 
the  iron  duty   two  to  forty-three.4    Efforts  both  to  increase 

as  proposed. 

and  to  reduce  the  duty  on  coal  failed.5  After 
some  general  consideration  the  bill,  with  the  amendments, 
was  reported  to  the  House  on  the  27th  of  March.6 

The  first  amendment  of  the  committee  of  the  whole 
which  appears  to  have  been  agreed  to  by  the  House  on 

April  2,  when  the  bill  was  before  it  for  action, 

The    duty    on  .  ,  .  n          .  ^ 

.unmanufactured  was  that  which  reduced  the  duty  on  unmanu- 
wooi  also  low-    factured  wool  from  fifteen  to  seven  and  one- 

.ered. 

half  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Boot  opposed  the 
proposition.  It  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  seventy-three  to 
forty-two.  The  duty  on  cotton  was  debated  a  great  part 
of  at  least  three  days  longer,  besides  the  general  discussion 
just  before  the  final  passage  of  the  bill.  Forsyth's  motion, 
made  on  the  2d  of  April,  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the 
graduated  duties  on  cottons  adopted  in  committee,  and 

1  Oales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1273.     The  vote  on  Clay's  amendment 
was  forty-seven  ayes  to  sixty-one  noes. 

2  Ibid,  p.  1274.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1275.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1285. 

«  Ibid.,  p.  1289. 


THE    TARIFF—  1789-1820.  69 

reduce  the  duty  to  twenty  per  cent,  from  June  next,  opened 
for  discussion  the  general  question  of  protection.1  Gaston, 
a  leading  Southern  member  of  the  Federal  party,  spoke 
for  an  hour  in  opposition  to  "  the  policy  of  burdening  the 
community  by  an  extravagant  duty  on  imports,  for  the 
purpose  of  encouraging  domestic  manufactures."  Another 
extended  speech  on  the  same  side  was  made  by  Cuthbert, 
also  a  Southerner.  But  such  efforts  were  unavailing.  The 
policy  of  moderate  protection  was  already  in  the  ascendency. 
Forsyth's  motion  was  deemed  too  sudden  a  measure  of 
reduction,  and  was  rejected.  Among  the  sixty-five  yeas 
were  Barbour,  Clayton,  Forsyth,  Gaston,  Lowndes,  Picker 
ing,  Randolph,  and  Root;  Calhoun,  Ingham,  Pinkney,  Pit- 
kin,  and  Sergeant  were  recorded  among  the  sixty-nine 
negative  votes.  But  the  battle  had  been  hardly  contested 
and  the  vanquished  were  not  prepared  to  yield.  The 
struggle  was  renewed  on  the  day  following  on  a  proposition 
of  like  nature  by  Forsyth.  Long  speeches  for  and  against 
this  were  made,  and  the  proposition  was  modified  by  Smith, 
of  Maryland,  who  offered  the  old  Clay  amendment  at  a 
lower  rate  of  duty  :  it  proposed  to  make  the  limit  of  the 
twenty-five  per  cent,  duty  three  years  instead  of  two.  It 
was  successful  by  a  vote  of  seventy-nine  to  seventy-one. 
Then  the  amendment  of  the  committee  of  the  whole  — 
twenty-five  per  cent,  for  three  years  and  twenty  per  cent. 
thereafter  —  was  agreed  to  by  a  large  majority.2 

The  vote  in  the  House  on  reducing  the  iron  duty  from 
seventy-five  cents  to  forty-five  was  eighty-nine 

nPl_  r\       ^  '  ^   i       Calhoun    votes 

ayes  to  fifty-one  noes.     On  this  question  Cal-    with  the  high 


houn  voted  with  the  high  tariff  men,  although, 

as  has  been  seen,  he  favored  a  lower  duty  on 

cotton  manufactures.3     The  House  reduced  the  duty  on 

brown  sugar  to  two  cents  and  that  on  lump  sugar  to  ten. 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1313. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1325. 

*  Ibid.  In  subsequent  chapters  the  reasons  for  the  action  on  this 
occasion  of  Calhoun  and  other  Southern  men  are  stated  as  a  part  of  the 
debates  on  later  tariff  bills. 


»vft) 


A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 


The  discussion  on  the  4th  of  April  was  one  of  the  most 
interesting  of  the  series.     The  manufacturing 

April  4.  _.    ,& 

interest  went  over  to  the  commercial  on  Pick 
ering's  proposition  to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  India 
cottons  to  the  rate  of  the  existing  double  duties  after  March 
1,  1817,  and  it  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority.1  Ran 
dolph  moved  to  strike  out  so  much  of  the  second  section 
of  the  bill  as  fixed  the  minimum  price  of  cotton  goods 
(except  nankeens  directly  from  China)  at  twenty-five  cents 
per  square  yard.  He  followed  in  a  speech  in  which  he 
arraigned  all  protection  whatever.  Calhoun's  reply  was  a 
caihoun  long  and  fascinating  argument,  conceding  some 

replies  to  of  the  objections  urged  by  Randolph,  but  con 

tending  that  the  security  of  the  country  de 
manded  the  passage  of  the  measure.  Mr.  Caihoun  seldom 
spoke  with  greater  zeal  or  ability  than  he  did  on  this  occa 
sion.  "  Manufacturing,"  he  said,  "  produced  an  interest 
strictly  American, — as  much  so  as  agriculture, — in  which 
it  had  the  decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  navigation. 
It  will  excite,"  he  enlarged,  "  an  increased  attention  to 
internal  improvements, — a  subject  every  way  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment  of  national  strength 
and  the  perfection  of  our  political  institutions."2  In  his 
opinion  "  the  liberty  and  the  union  of  the  country  were 
inseparably  connected."  He  said  that  the  word  " '  dis 
union'  comprehended  almost  the  sum  of  our  political  dan 
gers."3  Cuthbert,  Randolph,  and  Gaston  spoke  in  reply.. 
After  further  discussion  and  after  a  modification  of  Ran 
dolph's  motion  had  been  rejected  he  withdrew  it.  Wilde's 
motion  to  reduce  the  duty  to  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
was  also  defeated, — fifty-one  to  seventy-six.4 

Speeches  on  the  passage  of  the  bill,  April  8,  were  made 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1329. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1335. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1336.     Caihoun,  in  1816 :  "  The  liberty  and  the  union  of  the 
country  are  inseparably  connected. "     Webster,  in  1830:  "  Liberty  and 
union — one  and  inseparable — now  and  forever." 

*  Ibid. 


THE    TARIFF—  1789-1820.  71 

by  Randolph,   Smith,   of   Maryland,   Lowndes,    Calhoun, 
Wright,  and    Tel  fair.      Calhoun   denied  Ran- 

J      1      1    >  T_  Al.  xl  •  APril      8"        The 

dolph  s   charge   that  there  was   a   mysterious    tariff    bin    of 


connection  between  the  tariff  and  bank  meas-    1816  pa^ea  the 

House. 

ures.1     A  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  was  lost 

by  a  vote  of  forty-seven  to  ninety-five.     Finally  the  tariff 

bill  of  1816  passed  the  House  of  Representa 

tives  by  a  vote  of  eighty-eight  to   fifty-four.2 

It  passed  the  Senate  with  amendments,  and  was  approved 

by  the  President. 

Nearly  all  of  the  opposition  to  the  measure  came  from 
the  South.  It  appears  from  a  number  of  votes  Nearly  all  ^ 
that  of  the  members  present  about  fifty  were  opposition  from 
always  opposed  to  anything  like  a  protective 
policy.3  The  positions  of  the  various  speakers  and  of  other 
members  who  merely  voted  their  preferences  have  been 
indicated.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  at  a  later  day  were 
found  on  the  opposing  side  and  the  views  of  others  were 
greatly  modified  :  in  the  space  of  about  twelve  years  Web 
ster  had  become  a  protectionist  and  Calhoun  an  anti-pro 
tectionist  ;  Lowndes  in  four  years  had  grown  to  be  one  of 
the  sturdiest  advocates  of  a  revenue  as  contradistinguished 
from  a  protective  policy.  But  it  is  not  given  to  statesmen 
always  to  be  consistent  ;  for  consistency  is  sometimes  error, 
and  not  even  the  angels  know  all  things  that  concern  the 
welfare  of  men. 

A  supplementary  act  of  revenue  was  passed  at  the  second 
session.4 

At  the  first  session  of  the  fifteenth  Congress  an  act  passed 
increasing  duties,  chiefly  on  articles  made  of    igig.  Fifteenth 
copper,  silver-plated  furniture,  cut  glass,  brads,    Cou&ess- 
tacks,  etc.5    A  supplemental  bill  to  abolish  internal  and 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1351. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1352  ;  House  Journal,  Senate  Journal ;  Annals,  p.  334,  for 
passage  in  Senate. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  1347,  1348,  and  other  places. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  297,  1034. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  383,  1777,  2580. 


y 


72  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

direct  taxes  was  also  passed  at  the  same  session.1  A  bill 
to  increase  the  duties  on  iron  in  bolts,  bars,  pigs,  castings, 
and  nails,  and  alum,  as  amended  in  the  Senate,  finally 
passed  April  20,  1818.2  On  the  same  day  the  President 
approved  an  act  continuing  in  force  the  fourth  paragraph 
and  first  section  of  the  act  of  April  27,  1816,  which  ex 
pired  June  30,  1819,  until  June  30,  1826.3  It  sustained 
woollen  and  part-woollen  manufactures  at  twenty-five  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  which,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  act 
of  1816,  would  have  been  reduced  to  twenty  per  cent. 

During  this  as  during  the  preceding  Congress  petitions 
for  the  encouragement  of  manufactures,  especially  cotton 
Petitions  for  anc^  woollen  manufactures,  were  presented, 
protection  of  chiefly  from  the  Northern  States.4  Near  the 
beginning  of  the  first  session  Drake,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  had  moved  in  the  House  that  the  Committee  on 
Commerce  and  Manufactures  be  instructed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  granting  bounties  to  manufacturers  who 
should  manufacture  a  given  number  of  yards  of  cotton  and 
woollen  goods  of  a  certain  width,  and  that  a  permanent 
fund  for  the  payment  of  the  same  should  be  appropriated.5 
The  memorials  increased  in  the  sixteenth  Congress  and 
asked  for  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures 
generally,  as  well  as  to  those  of  cotton  and  woollen  fabrics. 
Counter  petitions  and  remonstrances  against  the  existing 
as  well  as  proposed  duties  were  presented  from  the  Vir 
ginia  agricultural  societies  and  from  merchants  in  several 
Northern  cities.6 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  pp.  35,  1769,  476. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  387,  1776. 

3  Annals  of  Fifteenth,  Congress,  p.  383. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  175,  446,  486,  494.  6  Ibid.,  p.  508. 

6  Annals  of  Sixteenth  Congress,  pp.  38,  41,  45,  75,  78,  119,  237,  537, 
712,  1403,  2286,  2293,  2307,  and  many  other  pages ;  and  in  the  second 
session  at  pp.  21,  24,  1821,  etc. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   TARIFF— 1820-1828. 

THE  first  protective  measure  introduced  merely  as  such 
and  pressed  upon  grounds  irrespective  of  the  question  of 
revenue  was  the  Baldwin  tariff*  of  1820.     This 
was  an  abortive  measure,  but  its  characteristic    protection    as 
features  were  so  important  as  illustrating  the    protection.  The 

Baldwin  tariff. 

changes  of  economic  ideas,  and  the  arguments 
by  which  it  was  enforced  or  opposed  were  so  luminous,  no 
apology  is  required  for  some  general  consideration  of  the 
chief  points  in  the  debate.     Baldwin,  of  Pennsylvania,  re 
ported  the  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.    This 
was  the  first  tariff"  measure  ever  reported  from  that  com 
mittee,  and  the  only  bill  for  the  raising  of  revenue  since 
the  first  that  was  not  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means.     The  increase  proposed  was  over  the  duties 
provided  by  the  bill  of  1816  as  modified  by 
that  of  1818.     Articles  were  divided  into  five 
classes,  and  the  additions  were  roundly  as  follows :  On  the 
first  class,  two-thirds;    on  the  second,  one-third;    on  the 
third,  one-fourth ;  on  the  fourth  and  fifth,  about  one-third. 
The  last  two  classifications  included  woollen  and  cotton 
manufactures,  upon  which,  respectively,  the  increase  was 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty-three  for  woollen  and  cotton  not 
from  India,  and  twenty-five  to  forty  for  the  latter  imported 
from  India.1    Chairman  Baldwin  explained  the        Baldwin's 
provisions  in  a  long  and  very  able  speech  in        speech. 
which  were  employed  the  arguments  against  British  su 
premacy  and  for  the  necessity  for  national  industry.     He 
considered  "  that  which  was  taken  from  the  earth  as  raw 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  vol.  xxxvi.  p.  1913. 

73 


74  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

material,"  and  would  encourage  equally  as  manufactures 
every  change  in  its  form  or  value  by  labor.1  He  claimed 
that  the  bill  would  make  ample  provision  for  revenue,  and, 
estimating  the  imports  the  same  as  in  1818,  he  thought  that 
the  increased  duties  would  be  five  million  eight  hundred 
thousand  dollars.2  He  contended  for  a  new  policy, — one  of 
protection.  In  five  years,  he  said,  the  impost  diminished 
from  thirty-six  millions  to  sixteen,  more  than  three  millions 
of  which  was  in  suit.  As  the  expenditures  of  the  govern 
ment  were  twenty-six  millions,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
resort  to  internal  taxation.  He  opposed  strongly  total 
reliance  upon  imposts.  "  Bottom  your  revenue,"  was  his 
expression,  "  on  the  manufactures  of  the  country.  Com 
merce  has  too  long  been  the  spoiled  child  of  government." 3 
He  insisted  that  the  flood  of  imports  had  exhausted  the 
country's  resources.4 

It  is  not  necessary  to  state  formally,  as  in  the  case  of  a 
successful  bill,  the  progress  of  this  measure  through  the 
House  and  its  course  up  to  the  point  of  final  action  in  the 
Senate.  Some  of  those  who  opposed  it  favored  certain 
reductions.6  Among  the  arguments  used  against  the  bill 
Arguments  in  were  the  following:  that  manufacturers  will 
opposition.  gay  .Q^  they  were  invited  by  the  legislation  of 
Congress  to  invest  capital  and  that  the  home  markets  are 
overstocked  and  further  protection  is  demanded  to  save 
them  from  ruin ; 6  that  protection  would  diminish  the  value 
of  land,  shutting  out  the  agricultural  section  from  the 
foreign  market  and  burdening  the  people  with  taxation; 
that  commerce  would  be  confined  to  the  local  ports,  as 
Tyler  said,  "the  bays  and  creeks;"7  that  manufactures 
would  flourish  without  the  factitious  aid  of  the  government ; 
that  the  theory  of  entire  independence  of  other  countries 
was  a  theory  which  aimed  to  subvert  the  ordinances  of 
heaven  itself;  that  it  was  true  that  there  was  depression 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1936. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1938.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1940. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  1943.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1946. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  1955.  7  Ibid.,  p.  1959. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  75 

of  trade,  but  it  arose  from  palpable  causes,1  and  if  retalia 
tion  was  resorted  to,  the  United  States  would  drive  valuable 
products  out  of  the  market  and  not  establish  a  market  in 
their  stead.  Protection  was  denounced  as  a 

Arguments  in 

selfish  and  contracted  policy.  In  favor  of  favor  of  the 
the  bill,  by  speakers  who  succeeded  Baldwin, 
it  was  urged  that  American  prosperity  should  not  be  made 
to  depend  upon  the  misfortunes  of  Europe ; 2  the  limits  of 
foreign  demand  for  our  agricultural  products  were  pre 
carious,  the  selfishness  of  foreign  powers  rendering  retalia 
tory  measures  necessary  in  order  to  secure  our  own  inde 
pendence  ; 3  that  the  argument  was  not  fair  which  arraigned 
one  industry  and  excused  others  for  inevitable  ills;  that 
customs  were  unsteady  and  made  it  necessary  to  resort 
again  to  internal  revenue ;  that  the  foreign  trade  had  been 
protected  too  much  by  the  operations  of  the  government, 
and  that  the  time  had  come  for  the  extension  of  the  prin 
ciple  to  manufactures ; 4  that  in  consequence  of  the  policy 
that  had  been  pursued  villages  had  been  abandoned  in  the 
"Western  States  and  cotton  factories  in  the  East  had  been 
ruined.5  Clay  foretold  what  Whitman  and  so  many  others 
did  not  foresee,  that  New  England's  situation  would  insure 
her  the  first  and  richest  fruits  of  the  protective  tariff.6 
McLane  used  the  phrases,  "  national  labor,"  "  national 
capital,"  repeatedly,  and  while  not  entirely  satisfied  with 
the  bill,  preferred  it  to  the  existing  tariff.7  He  would  have 
confined  the  measure  to  the  protection  it  would  afford  to 
the  labor  of  the  country  and  left  the  subject  of  revenue  to 
its  "  appropriate  jurisdiction."  He,  too,  like  other  protec 
tionists  of  the  time,  looked  to  the  internal  revenue  to  sup 
port  the  government,  and  defended  the  principle  of  internal 
taxation.8  Like  Clay,  he  said  that  the  foreign  political 
economists  were  plausible  theorists,  but  unsafe  guides  in 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1961. 

1  (Storrs)  Ibid.,  p.  1964.  *  (Clay)  Ibid.,  p.  2035. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  2047.  6  Ibid.,  p.  2048. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  2051.  » Ibid.,  p.  2095. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  2097. 


76  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  pending  discussion.1  There  was  no  intention,  he  urged, 
to  change  the  agricultural  character  of  the  country  to  a 
manufacturing  one.2  Indeed,  all  of  the  speakers  acknowl 
edged  that  at  least  nine-tenths  of  the  power  and  influence 
of  the  country  were  agricultural.  McLane  declared  that 
it  was  "  the  result  of  the  experience  of  all  times  and  ages 
that  the  success  of  manufactures  has  depended  upon  gov 
ernment  aid."  This  aid,  he  insisted,  was  much  more  neces 
sary  in  this  country  where  there  were  difficulties  peculiar 
to  our  situation  and  where  we  had  to  contend  with  the 
bounties  and  premiums  of  other  nations.3  The  wealth 
produced  by  individuals  in  manufactures  went  into  the 
common  stock.  The  agriculturist  felt  the  impulse  in  the 
increased  value  of  his  land  and  estate.4  This  speaker  con 
tended  that  the  ultimate  effect  of  protection  would  be  to 
reduce  the  price  of  the  article  in  a  considerable  degree, 
and  he  appeared  not  quite  willing  to  concede  that  it  would 
be  enhanced  at  all,  even  for  a  short  time.5 

Ingenious  and  logical  arguments  against  protection  were 
made  by  Barbour  and  Archer,  of  Virginia,  and  a  very 
Barbour  cogent,  practical  speech  was  delivered  by  Whit- 

Archer,  '  man,  of  Massachusetts.     The  latter,  speaking 

mainly  for  the  commerce  of  the  country,  said 
that  it  could  never  be  wise  to  force  the  growth  of  manufac 
tures  that  would  always  require  extraordinary  aid  to  keep 
them  in  operation  and  which  were  not  essential  to  defence 
in  time  of  war.  He  charged  that  the  scheme  proposed  was 
for  the  benefit  of  a  few  manufacturers  and  of  a  small 
number  of  merchants  who  hoped  to  engross  the  whole  of 
the  mercantile  business.6  He  averred  that  the  manufactures 
of  New  England  were  moderately  but  reasonably  encour 
aged.  Silsbee,  from  the  same  State,  thought  that  the  com 
mercial  interest  would  not  be  able  to  bear  the  provision 
of  the  bill  that  three-fourths  of  the  duties  were  to  be  paid 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2097. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2098.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2106.  *  Ibid. 
5  Ibid.,  p.  2110.                6  Ibid.,  p.  2007. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  77 

in  cash,  and  denied  that  the  credit  system  in  the  collection 
of  duties  had  worked  loss  to  the  government.1  The  com 
mercial  interests,  as  represented  in  the  House,  however, 
were  more  favorable  than  in  1816  to  the  principle  and 
policy  of  protection. 

The  chief  speeches  in  opposition  to  the  hill  were  from 
the  agricultural  section,  the  South.  Archer  showed  that 
the  friends  of  the  protective  system  admitted  The  opposition 
that  manufacturing  establishments  had  gone  to  from  the  South- 
ruin  under  a  tariff  which  averaged  about  twenty-five  per 
cent.  The  additional  duty  was  only  about  seven  or  eight 
per  cent.,  as  he 'had  been  informed.  Was  this  amount 
sufficient  to  retrieve  from  ruin  and  protect  these  establish 
ments  ?  If  it  was  not,  then  it  was  unnecessarily  oppressive 
as  to  other  interests,  besides  being  a  nugatory  imposition. 
The  bill  he  characterized  as  an  appeal  to  public  authority 
for  the  relief  of  private  distress.  He  criticised  the  policy 
of  choosing  a  time  of  great  privation  for  experiments  in 
volving  an  addition  to  the  sources  of  expense,  affecting  all 
classes.2  Philip  Pendleton  Barbour  argued  that  the  bill 
would  diminish  revenue,  because  it  would  lessen  the  amount 
of  importations  and  increase  smuggling.3  It  was  a  viola 
tion  of  the  principles  of  political  economy  to  build  up  a 
manufacturing  system  by  means  of  legislative  interference. 
He  contended,  against  arguments  that  had  been  advanced, 
that  there  was  nothing  peculiar  in  the  situation  of  the 
country  which  would  establish  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule.  While  the  wealth  of  the  great  manufacturers  was 
increased  by  manufactures,  they  did  not  add  to  the  totality 
of  the  wealth  of  the  nation.  Precisely  as  you  enhance  the 
price  of  the  commodities  which  the  mass  of  consumers 
purchase,  you  diminish  the  value  of  the  products  of  their 
labor,  the  value  of  which  consists  in  the  power  of  com 
manding  the  products  of  the  labor  of  others.  The  interest 
of  the  agriculturist,  he  continued,  is  precisely  identified 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  pp.  1989,  1991. 
s  Ibid.,  p.  2021.  3  Ibid.,  p.  2058  et  *eq. 


78  A  HISTORF  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

with  that  of  the  community ;  that  of  the  manufacturer  is 
not  only  not  identified,  but  is  in  some  degree  opposed  to  it.1 
In  a  political  point  of  view  he  was  therefore  led  to  ques 
tion  the  policy  proposed,  which  was  to  create  and  sustain 
by  artificial  means  a  class  in  society  in  some  degree  neces 
sarily  opposed  to  those  of  the  rest  of  the  society.  The 
contention  of  Mr.  Barbour  was  opposition,  not  to  manu 
factures,  although  at  times  he  appeared  to  be  verging 
towards  that,  but  to  governmental  influence  in  their 
behalf. 

Lowndes,  in  reply  to  McLane,  Baldwin,  and  others,  ob 
served  that  the  question  was  not  whether  manufactures 
Lowndes  op-  were  use^  :  a  great  deal  of  trouble  had  been 
poses  the  meas-  taken  to  prove  what  nobody  had  denied ;  nor 
was  it  even  the  question  whether  it  was  the 
policy  of  the  government  to  encourage  them  by  duties 
upon  foreign  importations.  He  said  that  his  friends  had 
shown  by  arguments  which  had  not  been  answered  that 
that  employment  of  industry  which  afforded  the  most  profit 
to  the  individual  would  ordinarily  conduce  most  to  the 
wealth  of  the  State,  and  that  the  duties  or  prohibitions  which 
should  direct  any  portion  of  the  labor  of  the  country  to  a  busi 
ness  in  which  it  could  not  otherwise  engage  would  usually 
be  found  to  substitute  a  less  profitable  employment  for  one 
which  was  more  so.  If  they  are  right,  he  continued,  the 
present  bill  which  proposed  a  large  additional  encourage 
ment  to  particular  branches  of  industry  must  be  entirely 
indefensible ;  but  if  there  were  doubt  as  to  the  correctness 
of  opinions  which  they  held  in  common  with  every  political 
economist  to  whose  work  time  had  given  its  sanction  this 
doubt  was  enough  to  dissuade  the  House  from  further  in 
terference  on  a  subject  upon  which  they  had  perhaps  already 
gone  too  far.2  We  cannot  create  capital.3  Replying  to 
McLane,  he  remarked  that  the  expectation  must  be  utterly 

1  This  means  only  so  far  as  that  interest  is  protected  at  the  expense  of 
the  community. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2115. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2116. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  79 

illusory  that  a  bounty  could  be  given  to  any  branch  of 
industry  without  at  least  a  temporary  sacrifice  by  some 
others.  He  exposed  the  fallacy  which  regarded  manu 
factures,  but  not  commerce,  as  home  industry,  and  declared 
that  the  industry  employed  in  commerce  was  American 
industry.  In  employing  the  saw-mill  or  the  spinning-jenny, 
he  said  further  on,  we  acted  upon  the  same  principle  of 
getting  what  we  wanted  as  cheap  as  we  could,  and  we  pro 
duced  the  same  distress  in  throwing  out  of  employment 
the  persons  whose  ruder  industry  could  not  stand  this  new 
competition.  There  was  one  admission,  however,  which 
he  frankly  made :  the  effect  upon  home  industry  was  the 
same  of  improved  machinery  or  of  foreign  trade ;  but  the 
trade  which  benefited  ourselves  benefited  also  the  country 
whose  wants  we  supplied  or  whose  products  we  consumed. 
The  principle  of  this  objection,  he  stated,  was  not  so  much 
anti-commercial  as  anti-social.1  In  encouraging  the  manu 
factures  of  the  country  by  duties  upon  importations,  his 
friend  from  Delaware  would  do  the  very  thing  which  he 
meant  to  avoid, — he  would  promote  one  branch  of  Amer 
ican  industry  at  the  expense  of  another.  Meeting  another 
argument,  Lowndes  contended  that  it  was  no  decisive 
recommendation  of  the  plan  of  encouraging  particular 
industries  that  it  had  been  applied  with  some  differences 
to  commerce  as  well  as  to  manufactures.  Whatever  the 
expenses  on  account  of  commerce  may  have  been,  com 
merce  herself  was  made  to  pay  them.  The  advantage 
given  to  the  navigation  interest  in  the  monopoly  of  the 
coasting  trade  was  connected  with  considerations  of  de 
fence,  not  of  profit.  He  then  discussed  philosophically  the 
effects  of  the  encouragement  of  manufactures  in  the  mode 
proposed.  Of  the  withdrawal  of  labor  and  capital  from 
commerce  or  agriculture  for  the  enlargement  of  manufac 
tures  he  would  say  nothing,  but  would  claim  that  the  effect 
of  the  distribution  of  these  among  the  different  branches 
of  manufactures  would  be  one  of  "  unmixed  injury." 2  He 

>  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  p.  2117.  a  Ibid.,  p.  2118. 


v/a 


80  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

appealed  not  to  theory,  but  to  fact.  In  1818,  by  laying  a 
duty  on  copper  in  sheets,  two  establishments  were  main 
tained  which  employed  fifty-four  workmen ;  on  the  other 
hand,  four  thousand  braziers  who  worked  up  this  copper 
had  suffered  heavy  and  general  injury.1  He  considered  the 
general  state  of  the  country  and  especially  of  the  revenue, 
and  took  a  more  hopeful  view  than  did  the  speakers  of  the 
other  side.  Perhaps,  he  remarked  on  this  head,  the  un- 
prosperous  condition  of  the  revenue  was  proof  that  the 
prosperity  of  a  few  years  had  rendered  our  expectations 
unreasonable.2  In  reply  to  Baldwin's  opening  speech 
Lowndes  said,  "If,  in  addition  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
foreign  article,  you  lay  an  excise  upon  the  domestic  product, 
it  is  evident  the  country  must  pay  a  double  tax,  although 
the  government  will  not  receive  it." 3  In  opposition  to  the 
protectionists  generally  he  argued  that  "  in  an  extensive 
and  thinly-peopled  country  restrictions  upon  trade  would 
raise  the  price  of  manufactures,  but  not  of  grain.  In  a 
populous  and  fully  cultivated  country  they  would  raise 
the  price  of  grain,  but  not  of  manufactures.  The  last 
is  the  situation  of  England,  the  first  that  of  the  United 
States."4  He  thought  that  there  was  no  nation  in  the 
world  which,  in  proportion  to  its  income,  paid  so  great 
a  bounty  to  its  manufacturers  as  the  United  States.5  If 
the  bounty  in  question  were  greater  than  the  value  of 
the  article  justified  in  any  rational  view  of  public  policy, 
we  applied  the  money  of  the  country  injudiciously;  but 
if  a  less  bounty  would  produce  the  effect  which  we  de 
sired,  we  gave  it  away  without  object  and  without  ex 
cuse.  A  resolution  of  his  looking  to  information  on  this 
had  been  rejected  by  the  House  as  useless,  and  the  chair 
man  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  had  said  that  such 
information  had  never  been  given.  But  Mr.  Lowndes 
showed  from  a  sentence  of  Secretary  Dallas's  report  in 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2119. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2120.  3  Ibid.,  p.  2121. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2123.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2125. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  81  ^ 

1816  that  the  rate  of  duties  in  that  report  was  founded  on 
evidence  of  the  degree  of  encouragement  which  would 
enable  the  manufacturer  to  meet  the  importer.1  That  evi 
dence  was  laid  before  the  House.  Lowndes  cited  Hamil 
ton's  famous  report  on  manufactures  to  show  that  Hamil 
ton's  opinion  was  that  bounties  to  American  manufactures 
should  be  highest  at  first.2  Duties  four  times  as  great  as 
Hamilton  recommended,  continued  Lowndes,  were  now 
levied  upon  many  of  the  most  important  articles,  and 
were  discovered  to  be  inadequate  and  nugatory.  As  a 
further  argument  against  the  proposed  increase  he  observed 
that  the  appreciation  in  the  price  of  money  made  the  duties 
levied  on  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  much  more 
effectual  than  in  1816,  yet  Congress  was  asked  to  raise 
them.3  He  concluded  with  the  remark  that  he  believed 
the  bill  under  consideration  was  injurious  to  the  govern 
ment,  oppressive  to  the  people,  and  dangerous  to  the  sta 
bility  of  manufacturing  industry.4 

Lowndes  in  this  speech  dwelt  upon  the  vital  and  less 
usual  points  in  the  discussion,  but  refused  to  repeat  obvious 
arguments  which  had  been  employed  by  the  ablest  of  his 
coadjutors.  His  method  was  logical  without  formality, 
and  he  was  throughout  luminous  in  illustration,  practical 
in  application,  and  philosophical  in  the  statement  of  first 
principles.  It  was  the  most  powerful  argument  on  either 
side  during  the  entire  debate. 

On  the  29th  of  April  the  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote 
of  ninety-one  to  seventy-eight.5     Some  of  the    A  ^^ 
E"ew  England  members  voted  with  the  South,    The  bin  passes 
almost  for  the  last  time  on  measures  of  this  kind    1 
that  any  considerable  number  of  them  were  found  on  that 
side  of  the  question.     After  debate  the  House,  on  May  1, 
by  a  large  majority,  rejected  a  bill  for  regulating  the  mode 
of  collecting  duties.6 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2126. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  2127.  3  Ibid.,  p.  2130.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2135. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  2155.  •  Ibid.,  pp.  2159-2172. 


82  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

The  Baldwin  tariff  bill  was  postponed  in  the  Senate 
until  the  next  session,  when  it  was  finally  defeated.1  In  the 
Defeat  in  the  second  session  in  the  House  Baldwin  reported 
senate.  from  the  committee  on  manufactures  a  bill  to 

regulate  duties  on  imports  and  for  other  purposes.  Besides 
a  reference  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  nothing  appears 
to  have  been  done  with  the  measure.2 

If  the  debates  during  this  Congress  do  not  afford  suffi 
cient  evidence  of  the  depressed  condition  of  the  country, 
it  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  newspaper  files  of  the 
period.3  But  surely  that  trouble  is  unnecessary  and  readier 
proof  is  at  hand.  In  his  report  from  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  presented  by  Chairman  Baldwin  on  January 
15,  1821,  he  says :  "  There  is  no  national  interest  which  is 
in  a  healthful,  thriving  condition."4  A  table  of  exports 
for  1790  and  1820,  accompanying  this  report,  states  the 
Decline  in  the  following  facts :  Tobacco,  1790,  101,272  hogs- 
amount  of  ex-  heads ;  1820,  83,940 ;  decline  in  thirty  years, 
ports'  17,332  hogsheads.  Wheat  in  1790  was  ex 

ported  to  the  extent  of  1,018,339  bushels;  in  1820,  22,137; 
a  decline  of  997,202  bushels,  or  almost  the  whole  crop  of 
the  former  period.  But  flour,  pickled  fish,  pork,  turpentine, 
and  pot  and  pearl  ashes  showed  some  increase.  Cotton  is 
not  named,  but  the  remark  appears  that  "  the  value  of  this 
article  exported  is  to  the  amount  of  all  our  own  domestic 
exports  as  twenty-two  to  fifty-one."  The  report  of  the 
contraction  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  this  time  shows 
the  currency.  that  the  currency  of  the  United  States  had 

contracted  in  three  years  from  $110,000,000  to  $45,000,000.5 
Baldwin's  report  states  that  there  was  more  specie  than 
ever  before  in  the  country,  but  that  there  was  no  employ 
ment  for  capital.6  Business  had  declined  fifty-nine  per 
cent. ;  and  embarrassment  and  distress  had  increased  in 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  656 ;  Senate  Journal. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  863. 

8  Especially  vols.  xvii.-xx.  of  Niles's  Register. 

*  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  vol.  xxxvii.  p.  1553  (appendix). 

*  Ibid.,  as  above,  p.  487.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1562. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  83 

the  same  ratio.1  The  report  alleged  that  manufactures — 
internal  activity  —  would  restore  the  prosperity  of  the 
country.2  The  assertion  is  made  that  beyond  the  circle 
where  manufactures  flourish  there  is  no  currency,  and  the 
broader  statement  follows  that  the  employment  of  foreign 
industry  on  fabrics  to  which  our  own  is  competent  is  death 
to  manufactures,  just  as  the  importation  of  articles  con 
genial  to  our  soil  is  the  bane  of  agriculture, — both  are  said 
to  exhaust  the  national  resources.3  Following  TheCommittee 
this  report  is  an  able  reply  by  the  Committee  on  Agriculture 
on  Agriculture.  It  is  a  report  upon  the  peti 
tions  of  the  Virginia  agricultural  societies.  A  meeting  of 
these  societies  declared  that  Britain  had  never  been  able, 
with  all  of  her  legislative  oppression  of  her  own  subjects, 
to  make  her  silk  manufactures  productive  from  the  revo 
cation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  to  the  day  of  the  petition.4 
It  was  upon*  these  and  other  remonstrances  against  the 
protective  policy  that  the  report  of  Baldwin  was  framed. 

Memorialists  from  Maine  cite  Hamilton's  report  and 
show  that  the  protectionists  had  adopted  his  other  anti-pro- 
principles  and  disregarded  their  application.  tection  views- 
They  say :  "  In  the  case  of  iron,  the  duty  of  which  was  not 
half  what  it  is  now,  he  recommended  a  diminution,  under 
an  idea  that  it  was  almost  a  raw  material,  necessary  in  every 
kind  of  mechanism,  and  the  same  with  regard  to  molasses, 
which  we  could  ourselves  distil.  He  could  never  have 
imagined  that  the  time  would  come  when  it  would  be 
deemed  good  policy  to  make  the  people  pay  from  thirty  to 
one  hundred  per  cent,  more  for  goods  to  the  manufacturer 
than  they  might  otherwise  be  bought  for  of  the  importing 
merchant."5 

The  Philadelphia  commercial  convention,  in  their  peti 
tion  of  November  4,  1820,  observe :  "  If  it  be  asked  who 
are  the  rightful  judges  in  regard  to  the  expediency  and 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1563. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  1564.  s  Ibid.,  pp.  1565-1567. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  1519.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1495. 


84  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

justice  of  the  proposed  tariff,  it  is  surely  fair  to  answer 
that  the  payers  who  constitute  a  very  large  majority  of  the 
whole  nation  are  certainly  more  competent  to  decide  than 
the  expectant  receivers,  when  the  only  inquiry  is,  how  much 
of  the  money  of  the  former  shall  be  paid  to  the  latter  and 
to  what  extent  it  shall  be  taken,  not  only  without  their 
consent,  but  in  opposition  both  to  their  entreaties  and  re 
monstrances."  l  The  merchants  of  another  quarter  of  the 
Union  were  active  in  opposition.  "  It  is  sufficient,"  is  the 
language  of  the  Charleston  memorial  of  December  8, 1820, 
"that  a  government  takes  care  that  the  employment  of 
each  individual  inflicts  on  others  or  on  the  community  at 
large  no  injury,  and  that  each  shall  receive  equal  and  uni 
form  protection ;  all  interference  beyond  this  is  useless  or 
pernicious." 2  It  is  an  argument  against  manufactures  in 
a  thinly  settled  country.  The  petitioners  shrewdly  asked 
that  as  in  Great  Britain  bounties  to  manufactures  were 
followed  by  a  bounty  to  agriculture,  so  in  the  United  States 
there  should  be  bounties  for  exportation  of  agricultural 
products.  Their  cry  was,  "  Let  us  make  the  system  uniform 
and  equal,"  which  was  what  the  protectionists  were  crying 
along  with  their  efforts  to  do  j  ust  the  reverse  of  what  these 
petitioners  desired.3 

A  supplementary  act  to  regulate  the  collection  of  duties 
seventeenth  passed  the  Senate  at  the  first  and  the  House  at 
congress.  fl^  gecond  session  of  the  seventeenth  Congress,4 

and  was  enacted.  A  bill  making  perpetual  the  act  of 
March  3,  1815,  passed  the  House.5 

At  this  second  session  of  the  seventeenth  Congress  a 
much  more  important  measure  was  to  be  considered.  The 
agitation  for  the  increase  of  duties,  begun  in  1820  and  then 
repulsed  by  the  action  of  the  Senate,  was  never  discon 
tinued.  On  the  9th  of  January,  1823,  Mr.  Tod,  from  the 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1500. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1506.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1516. 

4  Annals  of  Seventeenh  Congress,  p.  378  ;  also  appendix. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  433  ;  for  former  bill,  pp.  630,  636,  647,  666,  669,  795,  and  887  j 
also  Journal. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  85 

Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  "  a  bill  for  the  more  effectual  en-      1823. 
coura^ement  and  protection  of  certain  domestic      January  9. 

5  »       1 1  •    l  f  1   *      4.1,  Another  tariff 

manufactures,  which  was  referred  to  the  com-  bin  reported, 
mittee  of  the  whole.  Briefly,  the  bill  proposed  n»  provisions. 
to  raise  the  value  of  woollen  or  part-woollen  manufactures 
below  that  duty  to  eighty  cents ;  of  cotton,  except  nankeen 
imported  direct,  and  dyed  cloths,  to  twenty-five  cents  per 
yard,  with  per  cent,  in  each  case  added.  The  duty  on 
woollens  was  fixed  at  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  there  was 
twenty-five  per  cent,  on  cotton,  silk,  flax,  or  hemp,  not  par 
ticularly  specified;  thirty  per  cent,  on  nankeen,  with  other 
details  too  numerous  for  mention.1  The  measure  was  de 
bated  from  January  29  until  February  14,  when  Tod,  before 
one  of  the  most  important  parts  had  been  perfected — the 
duty  on  raw  materials — moved  to  discharge  the  committee 
of  the  whole  and  thus  bring  the  matter  before  the  House. 

After  an  exciting  discussion  this  motion  was  negatived  by 
a  vote  of  sixty-seven  to  eighty-eight.2  The  bill  did  not 
again  come  up  during  the  Congress,  which  expired  on 
March  3.  Some  of  the  arguments  and  scenes 

.  .  i         .  ^  The  debate. 

in  this  debate  merit  reproduction.  Cambreleng 
on  the  first  day  showed  that  the  lowest  description  of  plain 
woollens  under  the  proposed  duties  would  cost  the  poor 
ninety -three  and  one-half  per  cent.,  amounting  to  prohibi 
tion  of  the  foreign  article.  Tod  confessed  that  that  was 
intended.3  He  explained  that  the  new  bill  added  five  per 
cent,  to  existing  duties  on  woollen  goods  with  a  minimum 
price  of  eighty  cents  per  square  yard  excepting  blankets,, 
flannels,  worsted,  and  stuff  goods.  Cottons,  except  as  to  a 
minimum  price  of  thirty-five  cents  a  square  yard  on  checked 
and  striped  cloths,  were  left  as  in  the  existing  tariff.  Hemp 
was  raised  from  thirty  to  forty-five  dollars  per  ton.  On 
bar  iron  the  additional  duty  was  five  dollars  per  ton.  One 
of  the  arguments  for  the  bill  was  that  coarse  cottons  had 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Seventeenth  Congress,  p.  544. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  727-1016.  3  Ibid.,  p.  727. 


A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

been  reduced  in  price  one-half,  while  the  home  article  was 
better  in  quality  than  that  it  supplanted.1  Tattnall,  of 
Georgia,  differed  from  other  speakers  in  opposing  manufac 
tures, — at  least  he  said  he  did  not  wish  to  see  the  manu 
facturing  interest  thrive  to  any  great  extent.  "It  is  the 
policy  of  our  government,"  he  contended,  "  to  discourage 
everything  which  has  a  tendency  to  limit  the  possession  of 
wealth  to  a  few." 2  He  claimed  that  while  the  manufactures 
were  yielding  from  seven  to  thirty  per  cent,  on  investments, 
the  planters  on  the  sea-coast  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina 
barely  secured  five  per  cent.3  The  classification  of  the 
duties  in  the  bill  was  assailed  by  several  speakers  as  careless 
if  not  uncandid.  Tattnall  became  greatly  excited  and  ex 
claimed,  "  By  Heaven !  we  will  not  tamely  submit  to  this 
treatment!"  Tod  had  said  that  one-half  of  the  country 
were  in  distress ;  Smyth,  of  Virginia,  could  not  agree  to 
throw  the  distress  of  one-half  on  the  other  half,  and  chal 
lenged  the  constitutionality  of  the  protective  policy.4  Cam 
breleng,  too,  asserted  that  it  was  never  contemplated  to 
confer  on  this  confederated  government  the 

Cambreleng.  .  .     c 

power  to  make  one  section  tributary  to  another. 
This  able  debater,  a  Southern  man  by  birth,  who  repre 
sented  one  of  the  New  York  City  districts,  reviewed  the 
history  of  the  origin  of  tariff  legislation.6  "  We  find,"  he 
said,  "the  patriots  of  that  day  debating  for  days,  nay, 
weeks,  together,  whether  the  duty  should  be  five  or  seven 
and  one-half  per  cent.  At  the  present  day  gentlemen  talk 
familiarly  of  ninety  and  one  hundred  per  cent,  and  of  pro 
hibition.  Now  for  the  first  time  we  are  presented  with  a 
tariff  which,  so  far  from  having  a  view  to  revenue,  aims  a 
direct  blow  at  some  of  its  most  productive  sources." 7  Cam 
brel  eng's  speech  on  this  occasion  was  a  learned  and  com 
prehensive  survey  of  the  economical  situation,  broad  in  its 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  732. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  753.  » Ibid.,  p.  755. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.  75&-760.  *  Ibid.,  p.  767. 

6  Churchill  C.  Cambreleng  was  a  native  of  North  Carolina. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  761. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  87 

recognition  of  the  obligations  of  the  country  to  maintain 
reasonable  duties  to  preserve  vested  interests,  but  incisive 
in  its  exposition  of  the  fallacy  of  taxing  extortionately  raw 
material  on  which  certain  manufactures  are  based.  As  to 
the  policy  of  restriction  and  exclusion,  he  said,  "  It  is  not 
upon  foreign  governments  we  make  war ;  but  we  commence 
a  speculative  and  blind  warfare  upon  the  knowledge,  in 
genuity,  enterprise,  and  industry  of  mankind.  The  ex 
penses  of  this  experimental  war  we  raise  by  heavy  taxes 
upon  our  fellow-citizens."1  Among  the  opponents  of  the 
bill  were  Durfee,  of  Rhode  Island,  and  Gorham,  of  Massa 
chusetts;  of  the  number  of  its  supporters,  Mallary,  of 
Vermont,  and  Eustis,  of  Massachusetts.  Mallary,  fluent 
and  optimistic,  did  not  believe  in  the  theory  of  natural  se 
lection  as  applied  to  industry.  He  recited  instances  of  the 
happy  effect  of  interference  with  the  agricultural  products 
of  the  South  and  Eastern  manufactures.2  Eustis  said  that 
to  encourage  the  growth  of  the  raw  material  was  at  all 
times  dictated  by  sound  policy.3  Among  the  benefits 
which  he  mentioned  as  flowing  from  the  system  of  protec 
tion  proposed  were  the  increase  of  demand  for  farmer's 
products  and  the  increased  value  of  land.*  Commerce  and 
navigation  were  also  benefited.  He  considered  the  objects 
of  the  bill  to  be  national  and  not  sectional.  The  Perm- 
sylvanians  continued  to  advocate  the  protective  Buchanan  and 
policy,  as  in  former  congresses.  Buchanan,  Gorham- 
criticising  some  of  Gorham's  arguments,  averred  that  the 
latter  had  "  boldly  declared  that  the  people  of  the  South 
should  resist  such  a  law"  as  that  proposed.  Buchanan 
claimed  that  the  bill  did  not  make  a  change  in  the  well- 
settled  policy  of  the  government.5  In  these  debates  the 
claim  was  made  that  President  Monroe  and  Secretary 
Crawford  were  in  favor  of  further  duties ;  but  the  former's 
message,  even  in  the  passage  quoted,  did  not  entirely 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  766. 

a  Ibid.,  pp.  773,  814,  824.  »  Ibid.,  p.  891. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  892.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  894,  897. 


'88  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

bear  out  the  assumption,  for  he  said  that  the  subject 
"  should  be  touched  with  the  greatest  caution  and  a  critical 
knowledge  of  the  effect  to  be  produced  by  the  slightest 
change." 

The  sectional  tone  of  the  discussion  was  very  perceptible. 
In  addition  to  what  came  from  Tattnall  and  Cuthbert,  of 
Georgia,  there  were  certain  very  bitter  expressions  used  by 
Van  Wyck,  a  Northern  speaker.1  He  said  that  for  fifteen 
years  previous  to  1817  the  Northern  States  made  three 
hundred  and  forty  million  dollars  as  opposed  to  two  hun 
dred  and  fifty-five  million  dollars  by  the  Southern.  From 
1817  domestic  exports  had  declined,  in  1821  amounting 
only  to,  Southern,  twenty-seven  million,  four  hundred  and 
forty-nine  thousand,  eight  hundred  and  thirty-six  dollars; 
Northern,  eight  million,  one  hundred  and  five  thousand, 
two  hundred  and  sixty-four  dollars.  He  asked  if  it  could 
be  a  subject  of  wonder  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Northern 
States  should  be  dissatisfied  with  their  prospects ;  whilst  a 
Southern  population  of  only  two-fifths  of  the  whole  num 
ber  of  inhabitants  of  the  States  should  receive  an  annual 
income  of  twenty-seven  million  dollars,  the  other  three- 
fifths  could  barely  obtain  eight  million  dollars.  Disclaim 
ing  such  a  purpose,  he  did  make  an  appeal  to  the  feelings 
of  the  Northern  people.  Woodcock,  another  speaker  from 
that  section,  deprecated  sectionalism  and  bore  down  heavily 
on  Southern  men,  whom  he  accused  of  having  resorted  to 
that  sort  of  argument.2  Attack  upon  and  defence  of  the 
manufacturing  system  as  to  its  effect  on  the  economies, 
politics,  morals,  religion,  education,  etc.,  were  rather  more 
frequent  and  animated,  perhaps,  in  the  discussion  of  this 
bill  than  in  previous  debates.3 

The  tariff  bill  of  1824  was  reported  from  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures  by  Tod,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  9th  of 
January.4  The  subject  came  up  for  consideration  on  the 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  pp.  983-994. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  995.  3  Ibid.,  p.  998  and  other  passages. 
4  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  p.  930. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  89 

10th  of  February.1    In  the  explanation  and  defence  of  the 
measure  is  seen  in  part  what  there  was  of  justi-    1824. 
fication  in  its  adoption.     The  arguments  in  op-    Eighteenth 

i  ?  *        Congress.    Tar- 

position  are  also  presented  with  reasonable  m- urn  reported, 
fulness  and  all  possible  perspicacity.  These  January9- 
arguments  and  counter-arguments  are  at  first  given  baldly, 
without  much  comment.  When  the  tariff  measures  of  the 
period  are  thus  outlined  in  the  words  or  ideas  of  the  men 
of  those  times,  a  vividness  and  certainty  are  imparted  which 
no  subsequent  remarks  of  the  author  in  criticism  can  efface 
or  obscure.  "  One  object  of  the  bill,"  explained  Mr.  Tod, 
"  is  that  as  to  certain  manufactured  articles, 
the  raw  materials  of  which  exist  in  abundance 
at  home,  we  should  by  legislative  provisions  give  to  our 
own  workmen,  not  the  exclusive  supply  and  command  of 
even  our  own  market,  but  barely  a  part  of  the  business  of 
furnishing  our  own  people  with  the  plain,  rough  necessaries 
of  life.  Another  object  of  equal  importance  was  that,  in 
stead  of  continuing  to  support  the  agriculturists  of  Europe 
in  almost  everything,  we  may  be  compelled  by  using  more 
home-manufactured  articles  to  give  to  the  farmers  of  our 
own  country  some  market  for  their  products.  And  another 
object,  not  inferior  in  magnitude  to  either  of  the  former 
two,  was  to  give  to  the  country  that  strength  and  power 
which  arise  from  possessing  within  itself  the  means  of 
defence,  and  to  rescue  it  from  the  danger  and  disgrace  of 
habitual  reliance  upon  foreign  nations  for  the  common 
daily  necessaries  of  life." 2  He  held  that  the  tariff  of  1816 
was  inadequate :  at  that  time  "  the  theory  of  foreign  specu 
lative  writers  called  political  economists"  prevailed;  and 
he  stated  the  theory  in  its  essentials,  in  order  to  show  that 
it  had  been  injurious  to  the  country.  "All  the  devasta 
tions  and  losses  of  the  war,"  he  claimed,  "  were  nothing 
compared  with  the  devastations  and  losses  of  manufacturing 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1469.    The  vote  upon  taking  it  up  was 
ninety-three  to  eighty-two. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1471. 


90  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

capital  under  the  tariff  of  1816." l  Proceeding  from  a 
statement  of  the  causes  of  a  decline  of  industry,  as  he 
conceived  them,  to  the  remedy,  he  held  out  to  the  country 
the  advantage  of  high  duties.  These  were  not  to  be  im 
posed  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  manufacturer  to  sell 
his  wares  high,  for  he  contended  that  precisely  the  opposite 
effect  would  follow  the  imposition.  He  declared  that  pro 
hibition  had  had  the  effect  invariably  in  England,  France, 
this  country,  and  every  country  known,  to  cheapen  manu 
factures.  The  fact  was  more  important  to  know  than  the 
reason  for  it.  He  thought  that  it  was  probably  explained 
by  the  assurance  of  a  market,  a  steady  demand.2 

With  one  exception  the  bill  left  the  cotton  duties  as  they 
were.  The  minimum  valuation  of  imported  cloths  was 
raised  from  twenty-five  cents  the  square  yard  to  thirty-five 
cents.  The  intention  was  to  give  protection  to  two  or 
three  finer  grades  than  those  then  protected.  Tod  ex 
plained,  with  scant  regard  for  his  severe  arraignment  of  a 
moment  before  of  the  tariff  of  1816,  that  "  as  to  the  very 
lowest  priced  goods  and  those  in  the  second  and  third 
grades  from  the  lowest,  the  addition  here  proposed  to  the 
duty  was  merely  nominal.  The  duty  as  to  them  is  already 
effectual." 3  A  specific  duty  of  six  cents  a  square  yard  was 
imposed  on  cotton  bagging,  as  he  averred,  for  the  benefit 
of  Kentucky  and  other  Western  States,  and  was  intended 
to  be  prohibitory.4 

The  effect  of  the  bill  on  the  revenue,  so  it  was  claimed, 
would  be  satisfactory  to  every  friend  of  the  measure.  For 
three  years  or  longer  the  revenue  would  be  increased,  but 
even  if  it  were  not  the  real  wealth  of  the  country  would  be 
increased  by  protecting  domestic  industry.5 

Tod  showed  a  disposition  to  get  the  measure  through 
the  committee  of  the  whole  without  debate ;  but  all  of  his 
friends  were  not  so  eager.  Clay  wished  to  give  time  to  the 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1474. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1476.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1477. 
*Ibid.  ft  Ibid.,  p.  1478. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  9l 

petitions,  of  which  Cambreleng  said  there  were  over  a 
hundred.  Barbour  and  Randolph  submitted  remarks 
which  invited  discussion.1  The  debate  opened,  The  debate 
as  that  of  1789  had  done,  with  the  article  opens  as  in 
of  spirits.  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  moved  to 
strike  out  the  duty.  Clay  conceded  that  the  clause  in 
question  might  diminish  the  revenue,  but  argued  that 
"  wealth  at  home  was  to  be  preferred  to  that  which  was 
to  be  brought  into  the  country  from  abroad." 2  Garnett, 
of  Virginia,  said  that  this  tax  operated  the  reverse  of  what 
was  claimed ;  it  was  not  an  encouragement  to  agriculture. 
Tomlinson,  another  Connecticut  member,  opposed  the 
clause  as  interfering  with  the  Connecticut  trade  in  rum 
with  the  West  Indies.  He  would  support  the  bill  if  that 
were  stricken  out.  One  of  the  low  tariff  men  called  atten 
tion  to  the  break  in  Speaker  Clay's  array.3  A  sharp  dis 
agreement  on  this  question  arose  the  following  day  between 
the  Eastern  and  the  "Western  protectionists.  Wickliffe,  of 
Kentucky,  declared  he  would  vote  against  the  measure  if 
the  duty  on  foreign  spirits  were  left  out.  He  said  that  the 
bill  was  not  for  revenue,  but  was  a  measure  protective  of 
the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country.4  But  he  criti 
cised  the  disposition  which  he  said  was  manifested  to  put 
all  of  the  burdens  upon  agriculture.5  Recrimination  was 
indulged  in  by  both  East  and  West,  and  other  sections 
twitted  Connecticut  with  her  interest  in  the  matter.  The 
discussion  was  carried  on  by  Mallary,  Tracy,  Foot,  Clay, 
Tod,  McDuffie,  and  others.  The  Southern  view  was  pre 
sented  by  McDuffie,  who  averred  that  if  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  proposed  duties  were  connected  with  the  inde 
pendence,  the  power  of  the  country,  this  consideration 
would  always  have  great  weight  with  the  Southern  people ; 
and  a  system  of  manufactures  tending  to  these  objects, 
although  it  might  bear  more  heavily  upon  them  than  upon 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1480. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  1483.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1486. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  1489.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1490. 


92  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

others,  would  not  be  disapproved.  But,  lie  remarked,  a 
system  of  a  combination  of  particular  interests  for  the  par 
ticular  benefit  of  each  was  one  which  would  never  receive 
their  sanction.1  Alluding  to  the  protection  offered  in  the 
bill  to  indigo,  he  said,  "  Nothing  would  appear  more  idle 
to  the  people  of  that  country  than  a  protection  in  the 
manufacture  of  indigo."  Tracy,  of  New  York,  would 
"  go  to  the  whole  length  of  excluding  the  foreign  article 
in  whatever  part  of  the  tariff  we  depart  from  revenue  as 
the  object."2  The  discussion  on  spirits  was  continued  on 
the  13th  of  February.  Tomlinson  argued  that  if  the  ad 
ditional  duty  were  imposed  it  would  drive  the  inhabitants 
of  the  West  Indies  to  seek  elsewhere  supplies  which  they 
had  been  accustomed  to  receive  from  the  United  States.3 
Tracy's  motion  to  strike  out  fifteen  per  cent,  and  insert 
fifty  was  lost,  and  the  committee  then  by  a  vote  of  sixty- 
seven  to  one  hundred  and  two  rejected  Foot's  motion  to 
strike  out  the  whole  clause.4 

An  effort  to  lower  the  proposed  duty  on  woollen  manufac 
tures  of  coarser  fabrics  from  thirty  to  twenty-five  per  cent. 
ad  valorem  failed.  Conner,  of  North  Carolina,  the  mover, 
said  that  the  duty  was  intended  to  be  prohibitory,  and  that 
the  article  was  necessary  to  a  large  class  in  the  Southern 
country.  The  vote  was  seventy-one  to  one  hundred  and 
six.5 

Brent,  of  Louisiana,  then  precipitated  a  debate  of  several 

days'  duration  by  his  motion  to  strike  out  the  duty  on 

cotton  basrginof.     It  was  contended  that  Ken- 

Cotton  bagging.  o&      =>  . 

tucky,  for  whose  benefit  the  duty  was  imposed, 
could  not  supply  one-sixth  of  the  bagging  needed,  as  was 
shown  by  the  Kentucky  census  of  1822,  and  that  even  that 
was  of  inferior  quality.6  The  protectionists  replied  that 
"  it  would  not  do  to  say  that  the  States  of  Kentucky  and 
Ohio  could  not  manufacture  all  the  cotton  bagging  wanted 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1497. 
» Ibid.,  p.  1499.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1510. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1512.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1515. 

6  Ibid. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  93 

for  all  the  cotton-growing  States  in  the  Union."  Tod  con 
tended  all  through  the  debate  on  this  article  The  duty  on 
that  the  three  cents  duty  on  raw  cotton  was  a  raw  cotton- 
protection,  and  this  tax  was  availed  of  to  enlarge  on  the 
reciprocity  in  advantages  which  was  asserted  by  the  friends 
of  protection.1  Trimble  defended  the  quality  of  the  Ken 
tucky  bagging,  which  had  been  depreciated.3  Hamilton, 
of  South  Carolina,  replying  to  the  argument  of  Tod,  said 
it  "  was  perfectly  consistent  with  the  whole  scope  of  the 
bill ;  that  if,  by  the  laws  of  God  and  nature,  any  part  of 
our  country  should  not  enjoy  equal  advantages  of  soil, 
climate,  etc.,  with  another,  Congress  was  to  exert  a  despotic 
power  with  a  view  to  equalize  the  advantages."3  He 
showed  that  South  Carolina  paid  a  cotton  bagging  tax  of 
sixty  thousand  dollars  a  year.  In  another  speech  he  said 
that  the  proposed  duty  was  equal  to  seventy-one  per  cent., 
but  Trimble  asserted  that  it  was  only  twenty-six.4  The 
latter  also  said  that  the  planter  made  three  dollars  clear  on 
every  bale  of  cotton  by  counting  the  bagging  as  cotton,  or 
twenty  dollars  clear  in  every  bolt  of  bagging.  This  state 
ment  was  corrected  by  Brent  as  to  the  foreign  cotton  sold, 
nearly  the  whole  crop  raised.5  The  protectionists  averred 
that  it  did  not  matter  whether  the  duties  on  sugar,  rice,  and 
cotton  were  intended  to  protect  the  home  manufactures; 
they  did,  in  fact,  protect  them.6  Cobb,  of  Georgia,  and 
others  offered  to  give  up  this  tax  if  the  duty  on  hemp  was 
yielded.7  Cobb  observed  that  the  object  was  distinctly 
avowed  not  to  protect  existing  manufactures,  but  to  assist 
in  bringing  others  into  existence,  the  price  being  laid  on  the 
Southern  States.  The  estimates  of  this  cost  varied  from  two 
hundred  and  forty  thousand  to  three  hundred  thousand 
dollars  a  year,  the  latter  being  Cobb's  and  Mercer's.8  Cook, 
of  Illinois,  remarked  sarcastically  that  cotton-growers  could 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1517. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1519.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1518. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1542.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1543. 

•  Ibid.  T  Ibid.,  p.  1544. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  1543,  1546,  1556. 


94  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

afford  to  give  up  the  duty,  as  no  further  protection  was 
needed.  He  contended  that  the  amount  of  the  duty  on 
cotton  bagging  was  sixty-six  thousand  dollars,  while  the 
bounty  on  cotton,  as  he  phrased  it,  amounted  annually  to 
nine  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.1 

A  difference  arose  on  this  question  between  Buchanan 
and  Tod.  The  former,  not  disposed  to  hazard  everything 
on  an  item  which  he  saw  was  unpopular  in  the  South, 
proposed  a  duty  on  cotton  bagging  of  four  and  one-half 
cents  per  square  yard,  and  at  a  later  day  favored  two  and 
one-half  cents  as  "  a  middle  course." 2  But  Clay  thought 
that  the  real  question  before  Congress  was  whether  the 
men  of  Inverness  and  Dundee  should  continue  to  have  a 
monopoly  or  whether  there  should  be  an  American  com 
petition.3  Owen,  on  the  other  side,  summed  up  the  policy 
of  the  bill  as  in  effect  this,  that  the  East  and  West  must 
co-operate  and  the  South  must  submit  and  contribute.4  It 
was  argued  by  McDuffie  and  many  others  that  the  South 
would  thus  contribute  without  the  object  being 
secured.  McDuffie  said,  "As  a  question  of 
political  economy,  you  can  only  protect  what  exists."  He 
declared  that  it  was  to  insult  his  understanding  to  tell  him 
that  the  culture  of  cotton  had  ever  been  protected  by  the 
legislation  of  the  government.  "  Estimating,"  he  continued, 
"  the  average  value  of  cotton  where  it  is  grown  at  twenty- 
five  cents,  the  duty  on  the  importation  of  cotton,  being 
three  cents  per  pound,  was  in  fact  only  twelve  and  one-half 
per  cent.,  ad  valorem,  less  than  the  average  duty  laid  on  all 
other  objects  for  the  purpose  of  revenue  alone,  and  could 
therefore  not  be  regarded,  either  in  intention  or  in  fact, 
as  a  protecting  duty."  It  did  not  operate  upon  cotton  any 
more  than  if  it  did  not  exist.5 

In  a  broad,  practical,  and  even  eloquent  argument  of 
great  length  Cambreleng,  the  merchant,  declared  that  the 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1545. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  1546,  1565.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1548. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1550.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1553. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  95 

bill  was  incompatible  with  the  principles  of  our  govern 
ment,  unjust,  impracticable,  warring  on  commerce  and 
agriculture,  and  destructive  of  revenue  at  a  time  when  it 
was  most  needed.  "  The  industry  of  every  country,"  he 
said,  "  must  be  regulated  and  protected  according  to  the 
circumstances  and  condition  of  the  country."  Deprecating 
a  search  into  the  duty  records  of  France  and  England  to 
mould  our  laws  in  absurd  conformity  with  their  ancient 
statutes, — the  venerable  follies  of  every  age  and  country, — 
he  asserted  that  there  was  "  neither  wisdom,  honor,  nor 
profit  in  a  countervailing  war  of  permanent  monopolies." 
He  continued,  "  The  prosperity  of  nations  depends  on  their 
natural  advantages  and  their  constitutional  security  of  prop 
erty  and  right.  Measures  violating  either  the  one  or  the 
other  injure  the  aggregate  interests  of  the  country."  He 
attributed  the  growth  of  the  country  to  "the  wonderful 
influence  of  constitutional  government  upon  the  industry 
of  nations,  and  not  to  any  of  our  ingenious  regulations."  l 
Alluding  to  the  class  of  citizens  who  had  been  held  up  by 
the  protectionists  as  having  enjoyed  too  much  consideration 
at  the  hands  of  the  government,  he  observed,  "  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  speculations  of  our  legislators,  our 
farmers  have  generally  pursued  their  labors  without  being 
conscious  of  any  advantages  derived  incidentally  from  our 
laws,  and  certainly  without  having  solicited  any  such  pro 
tection/'  He  further  remarked  on  this  branch  of  his  sub 
ject,  "  The  bill  proposes  to  impose  additional  duties,  but 
not  prohibitory,  on  agricultural  productions  to  the  value 
of  little  more  than  a  million  of  dollars,  while  it  embraces 
heavy  duties,  amounting  to  prohibition,  on  manufactures 
requisite  for  agricultural  use  to  the  value  of  almost  twenty- 
six  millions  of  dollars."2  "  The  arrangements  of  the  bill" 
were  called  by  him  "  this  compact  of  balanced  monopolies." 
In  his  conclusion,  Cambreleng  made  some  remarks  which 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1571.    The  whole  speech  is  found  at 
pp.  1568-1580. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  1572. 


96  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

perhaps  throw  a  ray  of  prophetic  light  on  the  events  of  a 
few  years  later, — the  tariff  excitement  of  1828-33.  "  Our 
cambreieng's  confederacy  now  rests,"  was  his  confident  state- 
warning,  ment,  "  on  a  rock  of  adamant, — on  our  political 
morality, — on  an  invincible  attachment  of  an  enlightened 
people  to  the  best  constitution  in  the  world.  But  we  must 
not  fearlessly  calculate  on  the  immutability  of  our  Union 
if  we,  adopt  measures  like  this;  for  no  free  government 
can  stand  firm  where  it  becomes  a  principle  of  legislation 
habitually  and  without  an  imperative  political  necessity  to 
violate  property  and  natural  rights."  He  urged  that  the 
forms  of  a  free  government  should  not  be  retained  while 
the  action  was  upon  the  principles  of  an  absolute  govern 
ment.  Two  days  of  debate  were  devoted  to  the  motion  of 
Owen,  of  Alabama,  directing  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  to  report  what  the  effect  of  the  measure  would  be 
on  the  revenue.1  This  proposition  was  resisted  stoutly  by 
Tod,  McLane,  Buchanan,  Ingham,  Mallary,  and  others. 
McLane  contended  that  the  information  ought  to  come 
from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  The  bill,  he  said, 
was  not  for  revenue,  but  for  protection ;  there  was  no  need 
for  alteration  in  any  of  its  details.2  On  the  other  hand, 
Livingston  thought  that  the  information  was  indispensable 
to  an  intelligent  vote  on  the  bill,  and  gently  criticised  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures  for  not  laying  before  the  House 
a  detailed  and  authentic  statement.3 

On  February  23  we  again  find  the  House  in  committee 

of  the  whole  considering  the  tariff  bill.     Mar- 

tindale  moved  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause. 

As  this  was  an  extraordinary  course  for  a  friend  of  the 

measure  to  pursue,  he  explained  that  he  took  it  to  bring  up 

the  general  question  more  regularly,  as  the  enemies  of  the 

bill  were  fighting  it  at  every  stage  on  general  principles.4 

On  the  following  day  Owen's  resolution  was  amended  so  as 

to  send  the  matter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  instead 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1586. 

a  Ibid.,  p;  1589.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1590.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1627. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  97 

of  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  The  vote  was 
eighty  to  sixty-nine,  and  showed  confusion  in  the  protection 
ranks,  not,  however,  as  great  as  that  which  followed  the 
adoption  of  McLane's  amendment  discharging  the  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  pending  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  The  effect  would  have  been  to  stop  debate. 
But  a  motion  of  Rich  to  insert  words  which  would  show 
that  the  purpose  of  the  bill  was  to  advance  the  commercial, 
manufacturing,  and  agricultural  interests  of  the  country 
placed  McDuffie  and  Owen  in  opposition,  and  Floyd  cut 
the  Gordian  knot  by  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  and 
amendments  on  the  table,  which  prevailed  by  a  vote  of 
ninety-six  to  ninety- two.  If  the  protectionists  were  con 
fused  at  the  beginning,  the  low  tariff  men  were  still  more 
eo  before  the  ending.1 

Continuing  his  speech,  begun  on  the  day  previous,  Mar- 
tindale,  of  New  York,  took  high  ground  in  favor  of  the 
indissolubility  of  the  Union  and  the  centrality  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States.2  "  I  would  remind  gentle 
men,"  he  remarked,  "  that  there  is  one  sacred, 

'         .  ,       .  .       .    .  Martindale. 

invariable,  enduring  principle  of  our  govern 
ment  which  no  portion  of  our  country  can  ever  violate  with 
impunity,  and  that  is,  as  the  majority  must  govern,  their 
decision  must  prevail  and  the  minority  must  submit.  Why, 
sir,"  he  continued,  forgetting  or  ignoring  the  distinction 
between  counties  and  States,  "  as  well  might  the  county  of 
Suffolk,  upon  the  extreme  end  of  Long  Island,  talk  of  re 
belling  against  the  State  of  New  York  for  determining  to 
build  a  canal  in  which  she  has  no  interest  but  to  which  she 
is  obliged  to  contribute,  as  the  cotton-growing  section  of 
our  country  oppose  the  authority  of  this  government  be 
cause  the  bill  on  your  table,  if  adopted,  may  limit  in  some 

1  But  there  was  general  confusion.    The  last  vote  was  go-as-you-please. 
Some  of  the  strongest  tariff  men  were  against  the  motion  and  some  of 
the  leading  anti-tariff  men  in  favor  of  it ;  as  Barbour  and  Cambreleng, 
along  with  McLane  and  Tod,  in  the  affirmative,  and  Forsyth  and  Mo- 
Duffie,  with  Mallary,  in  the  negative. 

2  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1632. 

7 


98  A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

measure  their  cotton  market  and  add  an  inconsiderable 
sum  to  the  expense  of  its  production."  He  denied  ex 
plicitly  the  right  to  dissolve  the  government  by  an  appeal 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.1  This  part  of  Martin- 
dale's  speech  was  a  reply  to  the  warning  uttered  by  Cam- 
breleng.  ,  Martindale  also  argued  against  custom  duties  and 
in  favor  of  internal  taxes.  He  adhered  to  the  general  con 
tention  of  the  protectionists,  that  the  large  market  opened 
in  Europe  for  Southern  products  was  unequal  for  the  North, 
placing  that  section  at  a  disadvantage,  and  that  the  South 
must  be  ready  to  yield  some  of  the  advantage  she  enjoyed 
for  the  purpose  of  building  up  Northern  industry.2  The 

parties  to  the  debate  accused  each  other  of  pro- 
Excitement.      A.  ,  o      -r»  1      T     •  p    • , 

ducing  excitement.  Burton  asked  it  it  was 
just  that  all  of  the  rest  of  the  Union  should  be  taxed  to 
make  up  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor  between  Scot 
land  and  Kentucky  in  hemp  products.4  This  part  of  the 
bill  excited  prolonged  and  angry  discussion.  Clay  promised 
in  eighteen  months  to  produce  bagging  from  Kentucky  as 
good  as  the  Scotch  article,  in  equal  abundance,  and  for  less 
price,  if  the  manufactures  of  that  State  were  permitted  to 
"  exist  under  hope."  Brent's  motion,  on  the  26th  of  Feb 
ruary,  to  strike  out  the  clause  was  lost, — ninety-four  to  one 
cotton  bagging  hundred  and  seven.  Buchanan's  motion  to 
reduced.  reduce  the  bagging  duty  from  six  to  four  and 

one-half  cents  per  square  yard  was  agreed  to  by  an  affirma 
tive  vote  of  one  hundred  and  nineteen.5 

P.  P.  Barbour  moved  to  strike  out  the  duty  of  twenty- 
five  cents  per  bushel  on  wheat,  and  was  supported  by  Gar- 
nett,  who  claimed  that  the  Southern  States  were  in  a 
ruinous  condition  produced  by  the  taxation  of  the  federal 
government,  which  did  not  leave  them  sufficient  income  to 
appropriate  to  the  improvement  of  the  soil.6  He  also  said 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1633.  A  few  years  make  a  difference 
in  the  views  of  sections,  if,  meanwhile,  there  has  been  a  change  of  cir 
cumstances.  Only  ten  years  had  elapsed  since  the  Hartford  convention. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1650.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  1656,  1657,  for  example. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1660.  &  Ibid.,  p.  1679.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  1679,  1689. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  99 

that  "from  the  commencement  the  Southern  States  had 
borne  nearly  the  whole  burden  of  taxation." l  Mallary 
attacked  Barbour  for  moving  to  eliminate  from  the  bill  an 
agricultural  product  not  exported  by  Virginia.  Marvin 
stated  that  the  item  was  included  because  a  meeting  on 
Long  Island  had  asked  for  the  duty.2 

The  first  appearance  in  the  debates  on  this  tariff  of  Daniel 
Webster  was  on  this  day.  He  explained  the  favorable  effect 
of  a  low  duty  upon  wheat  upon  the  United  States  and  State 
treasuries  and  the  manufacturing  and  commercial  interests.3 
An  angry  colloquy  occurred  between  Ingham 
and  P.  P.  Barbour,  the  latter  resenting  the  between  °iag- 
former's  remark  about  Virginia's  political  pride  ^™  and  Bar* 
and  ambition, — "  if  Virginia  looked  beyond  her 
own  confines  for  anything  but  political  power."4  After  a 
debate  between  Clay  and  "Webster  respecting  Canadian 
wheat,  Barbour's  motion  was  rejected.5 

Iron  was  a  more  important  item  than  either  bagging  or 
wheat.  The  first  section  of  the  bill  proposed  a  duty  of 
one  dollar  and  twelve  cents  per  hundredweight 
on  iron  in  bolts  and  bars  not  manufactured  by 
rolling.  This  provision  Fuller,  of  Massachusetts,  on  the 
28th  of  February,  moved  to  strike  out.  He  said  that  the 
proposed  duty  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  sixteen  thou 
sand,  five  hundred  dollars,  or  thirty-eight  thousand,  eight 
hundred  and  thirty-three  dollars  in  addition  to  the  existing 
duty.  As  the  duty  was  raised  in  1818  from  nine  to  fifteen 
dollars,  he  argued  that  it  ought  not  again  to  be  increased.6 
This  speaker  replied  to  the  argument  from  the  balance  of 
trade  and  drain  of  specie,  which  had  been  employed  by  the 
friends  of  a  high  tariff.  Oar  importations  from  Russia 
and  Sweden  were  paid  for  by  sugar,  coffee,  and  other 
products  of  the  West  Indies  and  by  the  commodities  of  the 
East  which  were  the  fruit  of  our  circuitous  trade.  He 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1688. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1694.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1695.  4  Ibid.,  p.  1697. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  1701.    The  vote  was  71  to  113.  •  Ibid.,  p.  1705. 


1001       A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

showed  that  the  original  cargo,  of  trifling  amount,  was 
shipped  from  this  country.  In  the  distant  market  the 
invoice  was  of  small  consideration;  a  cargo  of  great  value 
Was  obtained  in  return,  not  suited  so  well  for  the  United 
States,  where  similar  commodities  were  plentifully  supplied, 
but  well  adapted  for  European  consumption.  At  Ham 
burg  an  ample  market  furnished  exchange  for  St.  Peters 
burg  or  Stockholm,  or  the  cargo  itself  was  sold  in  one  of 
these  latter  cities  at  a  profitable  advance,  and  a  cargo  of 
iron  or  hemp  was  provided  for  American  ports.  This 
trade  brought,  instead  of  taking  away,  specie.1  Fuller 
showed  by  official  figures  that  the  foreign  commerce  of  the 
United  States  had  been  impaired  by  legislation.  On  the 
other  side,  Buchanan  claimed  that  the  iron  manufactures 
of  Pennsylvania  had  sunk  to  ruin  under  a  low  tariff  and 
foreign  competition.  In  the  year  1819  sixteen  thousand, 
two  hundred  and  forty-one  tons  of  foreign  hammered  iron 
had  been  imported;  in  1822  the  quantity  imported  had 
increased  to  twenty-six  thousand,  five  hundred  and  eight 
tons.  But  Pennsylvania  did  not  desire  to  exclude  the 
foreign  iron.  He  cited  the  recommendation  of  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  report  that  iron,  paper,  glass, 
and  lead  could  bear  additional  duties.2  Mallary  delivered 
an  able  and  very  elaborate  speech,  reviewing 
the  whole  question  from  the  stand-point  of 
protection.  He  gave  an  epitome  of  industrial  history  and 
policy  in  Europe  from  the  time  of  the  Middle  Ages.3  In 
the  discussion  of  the  3d  of  March,  Breck,  of  Pennsylvania, 
opposing  the  view  taken  by  his  colleagues,  favored  the 
bringing  at  cheaper  rates  of  raw  material,  iron  included. 
One  of  these  colleagues,  Stewart,  moved  for  an  additional 
duty  of  twenty-five  cents  a  year  on  items  of  iron  mentioned 
in  the  bill,  and  to  extend  the  time  three  years.  This  propo 
sition  was  defeated.4  Then,  by  the  decisive  vote  of  fifty- 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1708. 

*  Ibid.,  p..  1710.  » Ibid.,  pp.  1712-1731. 

•*  Ibid..,  p.  1738. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  101 

four  to  eighty-five,  Fuller's  motion  to  strike  out  the  iron 
duty  was  negatived.1 

Chairman  Tod,  who  was  not  so  competent  a  man  to  con 
duct  such  a  business  as  Baldwin  had  been  in  1820,  became 
alarmed  for  the  safety  of  the  measure,  and 

.        **     c       ,  .    .  The  protection 

moved    an    alteration    of   the    minimum    on    ieader  alarmed 
woollen  cloths  from  eighty  to  forty  cents.    This    for  the  safefcy  of 

*  J  his  measure. 

movement  struck  strong  friends  of  the  bill, 
like  Martindale  and  Tracy,  with  surprise,2  and  developed 
differences  in  the  protection  ranks,  which  provoked  Hamil 
ton,  of  South  Carolina,  to  say  that  he  did  not  see  why, 
according  to  the  principle  of  equivalents  adopted  by  the 
supporters  of  the  measure,  the  Northern  and  Western 
agriculturists  were  not  entitled  in  the  general  distribution 
of  the  booty  to  their  golden  fleece.  But  Tod  was  sustained 
by  Buchanan  and  others,  and  his  motion  was  successful.3 
Tod's  amendment  laying  a  duty  on  pig-iron  was  rejected 
by  a  vote  of  seventy-nine  to  one  hundred  and  eleven. 

On  the  6th  and  7th  of  March  the  debate  was  chiefly  on 
a  motion  by  Forsyth  to  strike  out  the  third 

i  •   ,         ,j     ,    ,,  f    j»       .  March  6, 7. 

section,  which  added  the  amount  of  foreign 
bounties  to  the  duties.  This  motion  was  advocated  by 
Forsyth,  Randolph,  P.  P.  Barbour,  Fuller,  Bartlett,  Ross, 
Mercer,  Livennore,  Cambreleng,  Stevenson,  and  Foot,  of 
Connecticut,  and  opposed  by  Clay,  Stewart,  and  Tod.4 
The  amendments  proposed  by  the  last  two  were  lost,  and 
the  original  motion  prevailed  by  a  large  majority.5  The 
debate  in  favor  of  the  proposition  turned  on  the  terms  of 
the  British  treaty,  which  provided  that  articles  imported 
into  this  country  should  not  have  a  higher  duty  imposed 
than  those  imported  from  other  countries.  After  an  inter 
val  of  a  week  the  House  resumed  consideration  of  the  bill 
and  rejected  a  movement  to  increase  the  duty  on  lead  in 
pigs,  bars,  or  sheets  from  two  to  three  cents.6  Four  days 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1738. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  1741.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1750.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  1756-1758* 

5  Ibid.,  p.  1761.     The  vote  was  114  to  66.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1792. 


102         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

later  the  Committee  on  Agriculture,  which  had  heen  in 
structed  to  report  the  effect  of  the  pending  bill  on  agricul 
tural  interests,  submitted  the  result  of  their  inquiries.1 
The  report  was  based  on  the  advantage  of  a  home  market, 
which  it  was  claimed  would  be  afforded  by  the  bill.  It  was 
insisted  that  the  duties  "  should  embrace  every  raw  ma 
terial  found  or  produced  with  ease  in  the  United  States. " 
It  was  declared  that  the  foreign  market  for  the  fruits  of 
our  soil  depended  but  little  on  the  sale  of  foreign  goods  in 
this  country.  As  to  the  amount  of  duty,  it  was  said  that 
it  must  always  depend  upon  a  variety  of  considerations 
which  need  not  be  stated ;  it  must  be  sufficient  to  secure 
the  exclusive  and  constant  demand  of  our  raw  materials 
competent  to  build  up  and  protect  manufacturing  establish 
ments  in  being,  and  which  with  reasonable  encouragement 
would  present  a  constant  demand  for  these  raw  materials. 
The  committee  declined  to  specify  articles,  but  referred  to 
the  tariff  bill  for  an  enumeration.2 

Tallow  on  March  19  and  hemp  on  the  20th  and  23d  of 

March  were  considered  at  some  length.     The  debate  on  the 

latter  subiect  arose  upon  Cambrelensfs  motion 

March  19,  20. 

to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  from  two  cents  to 
one  and  one-half  cents.  Reed,  of  Massachusetts,  claimed 
that  the  additional  fourteen  dollars  and  eighty  cents  per 
ton  to  the  existing  duty  of  thirty  dollars  would  destroy 
foreign  commerce,  increasing  the  amount  of  duty  paid 
from  seventy-two  thousand  dollars  to  one  hundred  and 
Beven  thousand,  five  hundred  and  twenty  dollars.3  The 
debate  was  continued  by  Webster,  Mercer,  P.  P.  Barbour, 
Foot,  of  Connecticut,  Cambreleng,  and  McKim  in  favor, 
and  Buchanan,  Tod,  and  Clay  against  the  proposition  and 
in  favor  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill.4 

On  the  24th  of  March  Clay  moved  to  insert  a  duty  of 

1  Gales  and  Beaton's  Annals,  p.  1857. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  1859. 

3  This  was  upon  an  estimate  that  every  one  hundred  tons  of  ship- 
ping  required  four  tons  of  hemp. — Ibid.,  pp.  1882-1887. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  1888. 


THE    TARIFF—  1820-1828.  103 

ten  cents  a  gallon  on  molasses,  —  a  motion  advocated  by  him 
in  a  speech,  the  tendency  of  which  was  to  pro 
mote  the  manufacture  of  Western  whiskey  at 
the  expense  of  Eastern  rum.      "  Every  gallon  of  spirits 
distilled  from  foreign  molasses  and  consumed      An  old  ques- 
within  the  country,"  he  said,  "  takes  the  place      tion- 
of  a  gallon  of  spirits  distilled  from  domestic  produce."    His 
principle  of  protection  was  defined  to  be  :   1st,  the  manu 
facture  of  our   own   materials;    2d,  the   manufacture  of 
foreign  raw  materials  which  do  not  come  into  competition 
with  any  that  are  native;  3d,  but  least  of  all,  those  which 
compete  with  our  own  produce.      The  House   agreed  to 
the  duty  as  proposed.1 

After  much  discussion  and  by  a  close  vote  a  motion 
of  Webster's  was  agreed  to,  the  purport  of  which  was 
to  allow  a  drawback  upon  imported  silks  and  nankeens 
on  re-exportation,  with  safeguards  on  frauds  against  the 
revenue.2  The  items  in  the  bill  were  often  adopted  by 
very  close  votes,  following  extended  debate,  and  a  num 
ber  of  amendments  desired  by  the  protectionists  were 
not  incorporated.  The  case  of  glass  is  in  point.  The 
duties  on  cut  glass,  two  and  three  cents,  after  a  division 
were  retained  by  a  single  vote.3  And  the  same  fate  be 
fell  the  movement  of  Tod  to  increase  the  duty  on  plain 
glass. 

Upon  Isacks's  motion  to  strike  out  the  section  containing 
the  cotton  minimum  of  thirty-five  cents  per  square  yard 
P.  P.  Barbour  delivered  an  elaborate  general 
speech  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  in  which    mminum      of 


all   of  his   logic,  culture,   and   classicism   ap-    thirty-five  cents 

per  square  yard. 

peared.4    If  the  measure  could  be  defended  as 
a  revenue  bill  he  declared  that  he  could  not  vote  for  it, 
because  no  increase  of  revenue  was  needed.     He  corrected 
a  misapprehension  as  to  a  large  part  of  the  debt  being  due 
in  the  years  1826,  1827,  1828.     Payment  was  •  simply  op- 

J  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  1904. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  1904-1912.         3  Ibid.,  p.  1913.        *  Ibid.,  pp.  1916-1945. 


104         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

tional.  With  the  exception  of  the  bank  debt  and  the 
three  per  cent,  stock,  the  existing  revenue  would  be  com 
petent  to  redeem  the  whole  debt  in  1835,  a  period  yet 
distant  eleven  years.  He  seemed  to  demonstrate  that  the 
bill  violated  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  The  reasoning 
on  another  branch  of  the  subject  was  as  follows :  "  The 
manufacturers  ask  for  protection  ;  a  given  sum  is  proposed 
as  a  duty;  the  commercial  interest  as  well  as  the  agricul 
tural  allege  that  the  profit  of  the  manufacturer  is  already 
larger  than  theirs :  who  amongst  us  can  tell  what  is  the 
profit  of  either  ?  And  if  we  cannot,  how  can  we  tell 
whether  protection  is  needed?  Again,  the  wool-grower 
asks  a  protective  duty  to  his  wool ;  the  manufacturer  ex 
claims  that  the  rate  proposed  will  prostrate  his  manufac 
ture  :  what  data  have  we  upon  which  to  decide  between 
them  ?"  He  affirmed  that  the  measure  would  not  increase 
the  public  wealth,  and  therefore  it  was  utterly  impossible 
that  it  could  increase  the  national  industry.  The  manu 
facturing  capitalist  increased  his  profits,  and  laborers  about 
secured  an  amount  equal  to  their  maintenance.  He  ex 
amined  what  he  called  "  the  pretension"  that  the  bill  would 
furnish  a  better  and  more  steady  market  to  the  agricul 
turist,  and  made  an  extensive  survey  of  modern  European 
nations,  besides  allusions  here  and  there  to  the  practice  of 
antiquity. 

Clay  replied  to  Barbour  on  the  30th  and  31st  of  March.1 
He  began  with  more  than  usual  impressiveness  with  a 
March  so  si  hypothetical  invocation.  He  defined  the  two 
ciay  replies  to  sides  to  the  question  and  respected  the  motives 
of  both.  He  then  reviewed  in  an  eloquent 
strain  the  state  of  the  country,  after  which  review  he  thus 
assigned  the  cause :  "  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
during  almost  the  whole  existence  of  this  government  we 
have  shaped  our  industry,  our  navigation,  and  our  com 
merce  in  reference  to  an  extraordinary  war  in  Europe  and 
to  foreign  markets  which  no  longer  exist ;  in  the  fact  that 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  pp.  1961-2001. 


THE   TARIFF— 1820-1828.  105 

we  have  depended  too  much  upon  foreign  sources  of  supply 
and  excited  too  little  the  native;  in  the  fact  that  whilst 
we  have  cultivated  with  assiduous  care  our  foreign  resources, 
we  have  suffered  those  at  home  to  wither,  in  a  state  of 
neglect  and  abandonment."  He  said  that  a  nation  was 
most  prosperous  when  there  was  a  gradual  and  untempting 
addition  to  the  aggregate  of  its  circulating  medium.  It 
was  most  desirable  that  there  should  be  both  a  home  and 
a  foreign  market.  But  he  had  not  a  doubt  that  the  home 
market  was  "first  in  order  and  paramount  in  importance." 
The  object  of  the  bill  was  to  create  this  home  market,  and 
to  lay  the  foundations  of  a  genuine  American  policy.  WQ 
were  forbidden,  he  assumed,  to  rely  on  the  foreign  market 
both  by  its  inability  to  supply  us — our  power  of  production 
increasing  four  times  greater  than  the  power  of  those 
nations  for  consumption — and  by  the  policy  which  rejected 
our  great  staples  for  their  own.  He  stated  the  total  amount 
of  our  exports  of  domestic  produce  for  the  year  ending  the 
30th  of  September,  1796,  and  estimating  the  increase  ac 
cording  to  the  ratio  of  the  increase  of  population, — that  is, 
at  four  per  cent,  per  annum, — he  said  that  the  amount  of 
exports  on  the  30th  of  September,  1823,  ought  to  have 
been  eighty-five  million,  four  hundred  and  twenty  thousand, 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-one  dollars.  But  it  was,  in  fact, 
only  forty-seven  million,  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  thousand, 
four  hundred  and  eight  dollars.  Cotton  alone  had  advanced, 
but  its  actual  value  had  diminished  considerably.  He  then 
recapitulated  the  argument  that  less  than  one-fifth  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  United  States  produced  in  1823 
nearly  two-thirds  of  the  exports,  and  argued  that  something 
must  be  done  for  the  other  four-fifths  by  the  government. 
"  It  is  in  vain/'  he  said,  "  to  tantalize  us  with  the  greater 
cheapness  of  foreign  fabrics.  There  must  be  an  ability  to 
purchase."  He  presented  this  very  awkward  statement  of 
a  predicament :  "Even  if  it  were  true  that  the  American 
manufacturer  would  supply  consumption  at  dearer  rates,  it 
is  better  to  have  his  fabrics  than  the  unattainable  foreign 
fabrics ;  for  it  is  better  to  be  ill  supplied  than  not  supplied 


106          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

at  all." l  Mr.  Clay  proceeded :  "  The  superiority  of  the 
home  market  results,  1st,  from  its  steadiness  and  compara 
tive  certainty  at  all  times ;  2d,  from  the  creation  of  recip 
rocal  interests;  3d,  from  its  greater  security;  and,  lastly, 
from  an  ultimate  and  not  distant  augmentation  of  con 
sumption,  and  consequently  of  comfort,  from  increased 
quantity  and  reduced  prices."  He  claimed  that  the  estab 
lishment  of  manufactures  would  communicate  cheerfulness 
to  the  dispirited  farming  interest  He  pointed  to  the  ex 
ample  of  Great  Britain,  who  protected  most  her  industry, 
and  therefore  had  the  greatest  wealth.  As  against  the 
Southern  position  he  said  that  in  a  conflict  between  the 
interests  of  the  smaller  and  those  of  the  larger  portion  of 
the  people,  the  former  should  yield.  If  there  were  any 
diminution  of  cotton  exports  it  would  probably  be  only  "  a 
little  upwards  of  five  per  cent.  In  the  end  we  should  be  in 
demnified  by  the  new  application  of  our  industry  producing 
new  objects  of  exportation,  and  they  of  much  greater  value 
than  in  the  raw  state."  The  probability  was  that  our  foreign 
tonnage  would  be  increased.  He  thought  that  for  some 
years,  under  the  operations  of  the  bill,  the  revenue  would 
be  increased  considerably.  His  optimism  was  sublime. 
In  one  passage  Mr.  Clay  seemed  to  get  a  foreglimpse  of 
English  free  trade,  for  he  remarked:  "  The  object  of  pro- 

1  The  context  makes  Mr.  Clay's  meaning  perfectly  clear,  and  from  his 
stand-point  the  argument  is  irresistible.  It  is  this  :  For  economic  pur 
poses,  including  revenue  for  the  support  of  government,  the  people  of 
the  United  States  are  one.  The  wars  in  Europe  having  closed  and  left 
an  insufficient  market  there  for  American  produce  except  cotton,  which 
was  reduced  in  price,  a  market  must  be  created  in  this  country.  Now, 
the  state  of  things  did  not  affect  the  South,  because  that  section  could 
export  cotton  and  pay  for  all  it  wanted  ;  but  the  Northern  States  were 
not  so  fortunate  in  their  situation,  and  had  to  be  fostered  by  the  action 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States.  This  fostering  agency  was 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  legislation  which  forced  the  trade  of  the  more 
prosperous  section  to  the  less  prosperous  one,  and  if,  in  this  creation  of 
a  home  market,  the  Southern  planter  lost  money  while  the  Northern 
capitalist  gained,  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  contended  that  it  was  right 
because  it  upheld  a  national  policy ;  and  the  South  was  informed  that 
it  should  yield,  because  it  was  the  smaller  section. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  107 

tection  is  the  establishment  and  perfection  of  the  arts.  In 
England  it  has  accomplished  its  purpose,  fulfilled  its  end. 
...  It  is  upon  this  very  ground  that  many 

„     ,  .  i-i  i      Clay's      optim- 

of  the  writers  recommend  an  abandonment  of  ism.  A  &>re- 
the  prohibitory  system."  And  yet  he  denied  g^mpse  of  Eng- 

_    J      J    .  /  llsh  free  trade. 

that  England  was  about  to  abandon  protection. 
He  quoted  from  Napoleon,  whom  he  called  "  the  master 
spirit  of  the  age,"  to  show  the  superiority  of  agriculture 
and  manufactures  to  foreign  commerce.  Even  the  South 
would  gain  by  the  extended  consumption  of  its  great 
staple.  He  concluded  as  fervidly  as  he  had  begun.1  This 
was  the  ablest  of  Mr.  Clay's  reported  speeches  which  had 
been  delivered  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff  up  to  that  time. 
Mr.  Webster,  who  almost  immediately  followed  Speaker 
Clay,  dissented  entirely  from  his  views  and  from  the  picture 
of  distress  in  the  country  which  he  drew.  "  In 

Webster 

respect  to  the  New  England  States,"  he  said, 
"  with  the  condition  of  which  I  am,  of  course,  most  ac 
quainted,  the  present  appears  to  be  a  period  of  very  general 
prosperity  :  not,  indeed,  a  time  for  great  profits  and  sudden 
acquisitions,  not  a  day  of  extraordinary  activity  and  suc 
cessful  speculation.  There  is,  no  doubt,  a  considerable 
depression  of  prices,  and  in  some  degree  a  stagnation  of 
business.  .  .  .  The  means  of  subsistence  are  abundant;  and 
at  the  very  moment  when  the  miserable  condition  of  the 
country  is  asserted,  it  is  admitted  that  the  wages  of  labor 
are  high  in  comparison  with  those  of  any  other  country." 
He  noticed  the  injustice  of  Clay's  mode  of  calculating  the 
increase  in  exportation.  "  There  never  was 
any  reason,"  he  asserted,  "  to  expect  that  the  °t 
increase  of  our  exports  of  agricultural  products  ^crease  of 

exportation. 

would  keep  pace  with  the  increase  of  our  pop 
ulation."     But  the  figures  cited  by  him  showed  that  in  the 
thirty-three  years  between  1790  and  1823  these  exports  had 
grown  from  $27,716,152  to  $55,863,491.     "  The  year  1819 
was  a  year  of  numerous  failures  and  very  considerable  dis- 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  pp.  2026-2068, 


108         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

tress,  and  would  have  furnished  far  better  grounds  than 
exist  at  present  for  that  gloomy  representation  of  our  con 
dition  which  had  been  presented.  .  .  .  Irredeemable  paper 
was  the  most  prominent  and  deplorable  cause  of  whatever 
pressure  still  exists."  Mr.  Webster,  in  order  to  find  causes 
for  the  stagnation  in  business  and  industry  did  not  seek  for 
them  beyond  the  commonly  assigned  ones  of  the  close  of 
the  great  European  wars  and  the  inflation  of  the  currency. 
He  observed,  in  regard  to  the  latter  and  the  effects  it  pro 
duced  upon  different  portions  of  the  country,  that  "  they 
find  the  shock  lightest  who  take  it  soonest."  He  thought 
that  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  payment  of  debts  by 
legislation.  No  government,  in  his  opinion,  could  prevent 
depression  in  business  or  relieve  the  people  from  its  effect. 
Webster  declared  that  he,  too,  was  in  favor  of  protecting 
domestic  industry,  but  his  idea  was  that  "  the  employments 
of  agriculture,  commerce,  and  navigation  were  only  branches 
of  the  same  industry."  He  favored  some  of  the  propo 
sitions  of  the  bill,  but  to  others  he  had  great  objections. 
Freedom  of  He  objected  to  the  mode  in  which  the  measure 
trade  the  gen-  wa8  considered.  "  Freedom  of  trade,"  he  said, 
restriction  the  "  was  the  general  .principle,  and  restriction  the 
exception.  exception."  He  cited  Lord  Liverpool  and 
others  to  show  that  England  had  risen  in  spite  of  the 
restrictive  system.  He  combated  the  opinion  that  this 
country  should  not  export  large  quantities  of  gold  and 
silver.  There  are  no  shallower  resources,  he  contended, 
TO  accumulate  than  those  political  and  commercial  writers 
the  precious  who  represent  it  to  be  the  only  true  and  gain- 
onfy*  true  and  M  en(*  of  commerce  to  accumulate  the  precious 
gainful  end  of  metals.  Men  do  not  buy  wheat  because  they 

commerce.  ,  ,  , 

have  money,  but  because  they  want  bread. 
An  accumulation  of  specie  often  shows  a  want  of  employ 
ment  for  capital.  Where  there  are  two  coin  standards, 
the  cheapest  circulates  and  the  other  is  exported ;  and  from 
this  difference  in  the  value  of  silver  arises  wholly  or  in 
great  measure  the  apparent  difference  which  exists  in  ex 
change. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  109' 

As  to  the  necessity  for  protection,  the  question  was  not 
whether  we  would  lay,  but  whether  we  would  augment 
duties.  Iron  and  hemp,  he  averred,  already  paid  a  hand 
some  duty.  Much  had  been  done  for  manufactures,  and  it 
might  be  presumed  that  enough  had  been  done,  unless  it 
should  be  shown  by  facts  and  considerations  applicable  to 
each  article  that  there  was  necessity  for  doing  more.  He 
was  guarded  in  expression  as  to  further  protection  for 
woollens,  but  thought  "  it  would  be,  perhaps,  prudent  to 
abstain  from  the  experiment."  He  considered  that  cotton 
manufactures  had  not  only  reached,  but  had  passed  the 
point  of  competition.  He  was  willing  to  accord  a  higher 
protection  to  glass.  The  duty  on  hemp  was  already  too 
high.  Altogether,  he  thought  that  the  shipping  interests 
were  injured  by  the  bill. 

This  speech  was  in  some  respects  more  satisfactory  than 
any  previous  effort  on  that  side  in  the  debate  of  1824. 
Perhaps  as  a  whole  it  was  not  superior  to  Cambreleng's  or 
Barbour's.  Clay  had  been  eloquent;  there  was  not  a  rhe 
torical  passage  in  Webster's  reply. 

The  fault  of  greatest  prominence  in  the  anti-protection 
argument,  a  fault  observable  especially  in  Southern  speakers, 
was  the  tendency  to  depreciate  manufactures  Fault  of  the 
as  a  necessity  for  this  country.  Instead  of  anti-protection 
arguing  exclusively  against  government  inter 
ference,  many  of  the  low-tariff  men  insisted  that  it  was 
folly  to  endeavor  to  establish  manufactures  at  all;  that 
they  could  never  compete  with  those  of  England.1  One 
of  the  most  noticeable  traits  of  the  protection-  Wron  infer_ 
1st  debaters  was  their  disposition  to  quote  as  ences  of  tne 
sustaining  their  ground  passages  from  Ham-  pro 
ilton,  Jefferson,  Monroe,  and  others  which  did  not  bear 
out  the  construction  placed  upon  them,2 

Isacks's  amendment,  the  effect  of  which  would  have  been 
to  reduce  the  minimum  of  cotton  goods  to  twenty-five 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2111,  and  other  pi 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2144,  and  others. 


110         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

from  thirty-five  cents,  was  rejected  on  April  3  by  a  vote  of 
seventy-two  to  ninety-six.1      One  of  the  chief  difficulties 

Tod  had  to  contend  with  was  the  opposition  to 
Rejection  of  certain  features  of  the  bill  by  those  who  could 
isacks's  amend-  fa  re]ied  upon,  as  Isacks,  to  support  other 

features.  Clark,  of  New  York,  proposed  to 
reduce  the  rate,  as  scheduled  in  the  bill,  on  bar  iron  from 
one  dollar  and  twelve  cents  to  ninety  cents  per  hundred 
weight.  "  I  vote,"  he  explained,  "  for  an  increase  of  duty 
on  woollen  goods,  because  I  believe  it  will  make  a  market 
for  wool ;  on  molasses,  because,  as  the  importation  of  it  is 
diminished,  its  place  will  be  supplied  with  grain  for  dis 
tillation.  But  when  you  propose  a  tax  on  this  article, 
which  will  bear  so  heavily  upon  the  farmer  and  do  so  much 
to  empty  his  pockets,  I  shall  use  my  feeble  efforts  against 
it."  Tod  confessed,  in  reply,  that  the  reasons  given  "  struck 
him  with  a  chill." 2  Clark's  motion  prevailed.3 

Webster's  substitute  for  the  schedule  of  duties  on  wine 
was  adopted.  There  was  a  proviso  which  limited  the 
amount  of  duty  not  to  exceed  one  dollar  in  any  case. 
Specific  duties,  ranging  from  thirty  cents  on  Malaga  to 
seventy  cents  on  Madeira,  were  imposed  on  various  manu 
factures  ;  and  ad  valorem  duties  of  fifty  per  cent,  when  in 
bottles  or  cases;  forty  cents,  when  otherwise  imported,  on 
other  wines.  Clay's  proposition  for  three  cents  per  pound 
on  copper  in  sheets  and  bottoms  was  negatived,  as  were 
several  other  motions.  But  Conner  was  able,  after  a  second 
count  of  the  vote,  to  secure  a  reduction  for  the  woollens 
minimum  from  eighty  to  forty  cents.4  The  bill  was  re 
ported  to  the  House  on  this  day.5 

On  the  following  day  the  House  concurred  in  the  woollens 
amendment  of  the  committee  of  the  whole  by  a  vote  of 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2171. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  2174-2176.  Mr.  Tod  quarrelled  impartially  with  friend 
and  foe.  At  page  2220  an  instance  is  recorded  of  his  irritability  and 
lack  of  capacity. 

8  By  a  vote  of  99  to  90. —Ibid.,  p.  2209. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  2210.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2211. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  Ill 

one  hundred  and  one  to  ninety-nine.1  The  nays  were 
chiefly  Western  and  Northern.  This  action  was  recon 
sidered  and  reversed  the  next  day.  Western  members 
were  warned  by  Poinsett  and  other  low-tariff 

J  Fate     of      the 

men   that  there  was  danger  to   their   section    woollens 
from   protection.2    Poinsett   said,  in   reply  to    amendment- 
Clay,  that  "  the  state  of  the  seaport  towns  of  France  dur 
ing  the  prohibitory  system  of  Napoleon  was  not  more  de 
plorable  than  that  of  the  manufacturing  establishments."3 
The  amendment  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  establish 
ing  a  scale  of  advance  in  duties  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  was  concurred  in. 

On  the  9th  of  April  a  prolonged  discussion  occurred  over 
the   proposed   reduction   of   bar-iron.      Buchanan,  Udree, 
Brown,  and  Stewart  opposed,  and  Reed,  Ran 
dolph,  Tucker,  McDuffie,  Mercer,  Cambreleng,    April  9. 

r  '  '  °'     Bar-iron. 

Webster,  and  Marvin  supported  the  amendment  Pennsylvania 
to  reduce  the  duty  to  ninety  cents.  It  was  a  £|fdNew  Eng" 
contest  in  large  part  between  the  manufactur 
ing  interests  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  ship-building  and 
commercial  interests  of  New  England,  backed  by  the  agri- 
•cultural  South.  Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  denounced  "  the 
iniquitous  tariff  of  1816,  which  increased  the  duties  upon 
sugar,  etc.,  near  one  hundred  per  cent,  and  reduced  the 
duties  upon  iron  from  thirty-two  per  cent,  to  nine  dollars 
per  ton.  This,"  he  declared,  "  gave  the  death-blow  to 
American  manufactures."  He  insisted  that  if  the  duty  was 
increased  on  an  imported  article  the  revenue  must  of  neces 
sity  be  increased  in  the  same  proportion.4  The  speech  of 
Buchanan  had  contained  no  such  fallacious  statement  as 
this.  Indeed,  he  had  made  out  a  very  strong  case  in  favor 
of  the  additional  burdens  proposed  upon  both  hemp  and 
iron.5  But  the  reduction  was  agreed  to  by  a  larger  vote 
than  in  committee, — one  hundred  and  twenty  to  eighty- 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  pp.  2236,  2255-2257.    The  first  vote  was 
one  hundred  to  ninety-five. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2238.  »  Ibid.,  p.  2241. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2273.  ft  Ibid.,  p.  2259. 


112         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE.   '  , 

five.1  The  amendment  proposing  to  strike  out  the  pro 
vision  adding  the  amount  of  bounty  or  premium  to  the 
duty  prevailed  by  a  very  large  majority.2  The  Southerners, 
who  imported  or  drank  imported  wines  to  a  great  extent, 
were  unsuccessful  in  efforts  to  reduce  the  proposed  duties 
on  the  article.  The  minimum  was  increased  on  woollens, 
after  June  30,  1826,  to  thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents,  by  a 
vote  of  one  hundred  and  three  to  seventy-seven.3  A  prop 
osition  to  strike  out  bolt-  or  bar-iron  not  manufactured  in 
whole  or  part  by  rolling  was  rejected.  On  the  following 
day — April  13 — an  effort  was  made  to  increase  the  duty  to 
one  dollar.4  Isacks  was  again  defeated  in  his  cotton  mini 
mum  proposition.5 

The  committee  of  the  whole  had  accepted  Buchanan's 
compromise  of  four  and  a  half  cents  the  square  yard  on 
cotton  bagging.  In  the  House,  on  April  13,  Tod  proposed 
to  make  the  duty  five  and  a  half  cents  after  June  30,  1825, 
and  succeeded  by  the  Speaker's  casting  vote  in  securing 
that  duty.6  Several  Southern  members  voted  in  the  affirma 
tive,  among  whom  were  Mitchell,  of  Maryland,  Johnston,  of 
Virginia,  and  Yance,  of  North  Carolina.  Again,  on  Ran 
dolph's  motion  to  reduce  the  duty  on  brown  sugar  to  two 
and  a  half  cents  per  pound,  a  number  of  Southerners 
southern  voted  with  the  protectionists,  in  opposition, 

products.  however,  this  time,  to  a  lower  duty  on  a  South 

ern  product,  and  not,  as  before,  in  favor  of  a  higher  duty 
to  encourage  a  Southern  manufacture.  Webster  was  also 
among  the  nays.7  Dilatory  motions  during  several  days 
had  failed,  when  the  House,  on  the  14th  of  April,  ordered 
the  bill  to  a  third  reading  by  the  close  vote  of  one  hundred 
and  five  to  one  hundred  and  three.8 

On  the  final  passage  in  the  House  there  was  extended 

1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2287. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2292.     The  vote  was  one  hundred  and  forty-four  to  fifty- 
three.  8  Ibid.,  p.  2310. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  2311,  2338.  This  proposition  contemplated  an  increase 
after  June  30,  1825.  6  Ibid.,  p.  2312. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  2315,  2327.  7  Ibid.,  p.  2332.  8  Ibid.,  p.  2342. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  \113!* 

debate.     John  Randolph  said,  "  I  do  not  stop  here  to  argue 
about  the  constitutionality  of  this  bill ;  I  consider  the  Con 
stitution  a  dead  letter."     He  declared  that  he 
had  no  faith  in  the  Constitution,  and  quoted    debate^on*1  the  X) 
Lord    Chatham's    expression   that   the   sword    final  passage  of  / 

.  the  bill. 

would  find  its  way  to  the  vitals  of  the  British 
constitution.     "  A  fig,"  said  Randolph,  "  for  the  Constitu 
tion."  l     He  was  emphatic  in  declaring,  on  the  part  of  the     • 
South,  non-intercourse  with  "  the  region  of  country  which 
attempts  to  cram  this  bill  down  our  throats."     He  valued 
the  Union  "  as  the  means  of  preserving  the  liberty  and 
happiness  of  the  people."     He  drew  a  picture  of  the  mer-  - 
chants    and    manufacturers   of   Massachusetts    and    New 
Hampshire  repelling  the  bill,  whilst  men  in  hunting-shirts 
with  deer-skin  leggings  and  moccasins  on  their  feet  were 
demanding  manufactures, — "  men  with  rifles  on  their  shoul- 

o 

ders  and  long  knives  in  their  belts,  seeking  in  the  forests  to 
lay  in  their  next  winter's  supply  of  bear-meat."2  Hoi- 
combe  spoke  at  length  for  the  original  bill,  and 
was  followed  on  the  16th  of  April  by  McDuffie 
in  opposition.  The  latter  maintained  that  there  should  be 
a  due  proportion  between  manufactures,  commerce,  and 
agriculture.3  Conceding  that  there  might  be  interference 
by  the  government  with  the  course  of  industry,  he  thought 
that  it  should  be  confined  within  narrow  and  well-defined 
limits.  The  protection  sought  should  be  only  temporary, 
and  was  only  justified  by  the  inability  of  existing  manu 
factures  to  compete  with  their  foreign  rivals.4  In  giving 
his  endorsement  to  the  tariff  of  1816  he  said,  "  I  distinctly 
recognize  the  principle  that  wherever  large  investments  of 
capital  have  been  made  in  consequence  of  a  state  of  things 
produced  by  the  necessary  acts  of  the  government  itself, 
the  government  is  under  the  moral  obligation  to  extend  to 
the  interests  thus  created  a  reasonable  protection."  But 
this  reasonable  protection,  he  argued,  could  not  be  an  ex- 


1  Gales  and  Reaton's  Annals,  p.  2361.  2  Ibid.,  p.  2370. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  2402.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2404. 

8 


114         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

emption  from  the  general  distress  pervading  the  entire 
community,  but  merely  a  mitigation  from  the  shock  which 
manufacturing  establishments  must  experience  in  passing 
from  a  state  of  general  war  to  one  of  general  peace.1  Some 
of  the  distress  complained  of  in  the  Middle  and  Western 
States  was  relative  and  in  a  great  degree  imaginary. 
"  What !  a  country  that  doubles  in  ten  years  its  population, 
calling  upon  the  government  to  relieve  it  from  distress  by 
creating  new  employments."  He  held  up  his  favorite  the 
ory,  a  system  of  internal  improvements,  as  more  important 
to  the  West  "  than  all  the  tariffs  that  could  be  passed  in 
fifty  years." 2  He  claimed  that  it  was  obvious  that  cotton 
and  woollen  were  the  only  manufactures  of  importance 
which  could  be  protected  consistently  with  the  general  in 
terests  of  the  country.  Hamilton  was  cited  as  having 
favored  free  importation  of  unmanufactured  wool.  Com 
bination  of  interests  on  the  principle  of  compromise  he 
opposed  strenuously,  and  he  showed  that  there  was  an  in 
consistency  in  protection  arguments.  "  They  tell  us,"  he 
said,  "  in  one  breath  that  their  object  is  to  relieve  the  coun 
try  from  its  dependence  on  foreign  commerce,  and  in  the 
next  that  our  foreign  commerce  will  be  increased." 3  He 
held  that  "  although  the  manufacturing  interest  made  the 
most  prominent  figure  in  this  scheme  of  protection,  the 
question  was  no  longer  between  the  manufacturing  and 
agricultural  interests,  but  between  all  those  who  produced 
more  than  they  consumed  of  the  articles  subject  to  duty 
and  those  who  purchased  that  surplus  production." 4  Inci 
dentally,  McDuffie  exclaimed,  "  God  forbid  that  the  South 
ern  portion  of  our  Union  should  be  a  separate  confederacy !" 
Further  along  in  his  remarks  he  declared  that  "  it  would 
be  some  consolation"  if  he  "  could  believe  that  the  heavy 
impositions,"  which  he  thought  "  must  operate  so  oppres 
sively"  upon  the  South,  "  would  produce  an  equivalent 
benefit  to  other  portions  of  the  Union." 5 


1  Gales  and  Seaton'a  Annals,  p.  2406.  2  Ibid.,  p.  2411. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  2419.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2424.  5  Ibid.,  p.  2426. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  115 

In  this  closing  debate  Trimble,  who  called  for  the  pre 
vious  question,  observed  that  the  discussion  had  been 
marked  with  more  temperance  than  any  sim-  The  discussion 
ilar  one  on  former  occasions.  The  call  was  temperate, 
sustained  by  the  same  close  voting  that  had  marked  every 
stage  of  this  bill.  The  vote  was  one  hundred  and  one  to 
ninety-eight.  After  another  count,  not  materially  different, 
which  had  been  demanded  by  Randolph,  Webster  moved 
that  the  bill  lie  on  the  table.  This  motion  was  rejected  by 
ninety-eight  to  one  hundred  and  ten,1  and  the  previous 
question  was  ordered  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  ten  to 
ninety-seven.  The  bill  then  passed  the  House  The  bin  passes 
by  one  hundred  and  seven  to  one  hundred  and  the  H<>use. 
two,  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate. 2  The  yeas  were  Adams, 
Alexander  (Tennessee),  Allison,  Barber  (Connecticut),  Bart- 
ley,  Beecher,  Bradley,  Brown,  Buchanan,  Buck,  Buckner, 
Cady,  Campbell  (Ohio),  Cassedy,  Clark,  Collins,  Condict, 
Cook,  Crafts,  Craig,  Durfee,  Dwight,  Eaton,  Eddy,  Edwards 
(Pennsylvania),  Ellis,  Farrelly,  Findlay,  Forward,  Garrison, 
Gazlay,  Harris,  Hayden,  Hemphill,  Henry,  Herkimer,  Hoi- 
combe,  Houston,  Jenkins,  Johnson  (Virginia),  J.  T.  John 
son,  F.  Johnson,  Kidder,  Kremer,  Lawrence,  Letcher,  Little, 
Me  Arthur,  McKean,  McKim,  McLane  (Delaware),  McLean 
(Ohio),  Mallary,  Markley,  Martindale,  Marvin,  Matlack, 
Matson,  Metcalfe,  Miller,  Mitchell  (Pennsylvania),  Mitchell 
(Maryland),  Moore  (Kentucky),  Morgan,  Patterson  (Penn 
sylvania),  Patterson  (Ohio),  Plumer  (Pennsylvania),  Prince, 
Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Rose,  Ross,  Scott,  Sharpe,  Sloane, 
Sterling,  Stewart,  Stoddard,  Storrs,  Strong,  Swan,  Taylor, 
Ten  Eyck,  Test,  Thompson  (Kentucky),  Tod,  Tomlinson, 
Tracy,  Trimble,  Tyson,  Udree,  Vance  (Ohio),  Van  Rens- 
selaer,  Van  Wyck,  Vinton,  Wayne,  Whitman,  Whittlesey, 
White,  Wickliffe,  James  Wilson,  Henry  Wilson,  Wilson 
(Ohio),  Wood,  Woods,  Wright.  The  negative  vote  was  aa 
follows :  Abbot,  Alexander  (Virginia),  Allen  (Massachu- 


1  Gales  and  Seaton's  Annals,  p.  2427. 

J  Ibid.,  pp.  2427,  2429  ;  House  Journal,  428. 


116          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

setts),  Allen  (Tennessee),  Archer,  Bailies,  P.  P.  Barbour, 
J.  S.  Barbour,  Bartlett,  Bassett,  Blair,  Breck,  Brent,  Bur- 
leigh,  Burton,  Cambreleng,  Campbell  (South  Carolina), 
Carter,  Gary,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Conner,  Crowninshield,  Cul- 
peper,  Cushman,  Cuthbert,  Day,  Dwinnell,  Edwards  (North 
Carolina),  Floyd,  Foot  (Connecticut),  Foote  (New  York), 
Forsyth,  Frost,  Fuller,  Garnett,  Gatlin,  Gist,  Govan,  Gurley, 
Hall,  Hamilton,  Harvey,  Hay  ward,  Herrick,  Hobart,  Hoge- 
boom,  Hooks,  Isacks,  Kent,  Lathrop,  Lee,  Leftwich,  Lin 
coln,  Litchfield,  Livermore,  Livingston,  Locke,  Long,  Long 
fellow,  McCoy,  McDuffie,  McKee,  Mangum,  Mercer,  Moore 
(Alabama),  Neale,  Nelson,  Newton,  O'Brien,  Owen,  Plum 
(New  Hampshire),  Poinsett,  Randolph,  Rankin,  Reed,  Rey 
nolds,  Rives,  Saunders,  Sandford,  Sibley,  Arthur  Smith, 
Alexander  Smyth,  William  Smith,  Spaight,  Spence,  Stan- 
defer,  A.  Stevenson,  J.  Stephenson,  Taliaferro,  Tattnall, 
Thompson  (Georgia),  Tucker  (Virginia),  Tucker  (South 
Carolina),  Vance  (North  Carolina),  Warfield,  Webster, 
Whipple,  Williams  (New  York),  Williams  (Virginia),  Wil 
liams  (North  Carolina),  Wilson  (South  Carolina). 

The  tariff  bill  was  laid  before  the  Senate  on  the  19th  of 
April  19.  April,  and  on  the  following  day  a  debate  oc- 

in  the  senate,  curred  on  its  reference, — whether  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Manufactures  or  the  Committee  on  Finance.  It 
was  decided  by  a  close  vote  against  the  latter,  and  the  bill 
was  then  referred  to  the  former  committee.  On  the  24th 
of  the  same  month  the  measure  was  reported  with  amend 
ments  and  a  comparative  statement  of  differences  between 
the  existing  and  the  proposed  tariff. 1  It  was  considered 
April  28.  and  various  amendments  were  agreed  to  on  the 

Amendments.  28th  of  April.  Mills's  motion  to  strike  out  the 
duty  on  unmanufactured  iron  was  sustained  by  Holmes  and 
Lloyd,  and  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  twenty- 
three.  2  On  the  succeeding  day,  Lloyd,  of  Massachusetts, 
moved  to  strike  out  the  hemp  duty,  which  motion  was 

1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  524,  530,  569. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  583-591. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  117 

favored  by  several  speakers  and  opposed  by  Johnson,  of 
Kentucky.     Van  Buren,  who  had  voted  with  the  iron  men 
the  previous  day,  antagonized  the  motion,  but  was  in  favor 
of  reducing  the  duty  "  to  an  amount  which  would  be  just 
and   politic."      The  motion  was  successful  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-four  to  twenty-three.     The  mercantile 
interest   of  the   East  voted  with  the  planting 
interest  against  the  Western  and  Middle  States  and  a  part 
of  the  Eastern. l 

Cotton  bagging  caused  an  extended  debate  on  the  30th 
of  April,  on  Kelly's  motion  to  strike  out  the  highest  or  in 
creased  duty  on  this  article.2  Hayne  showed  Apriiso. 
the  difference  in  principle  between  the  tariff  of  cotton  bagging, 
1816  and  the  one  proposed  :  the  former  placed  the  highest 
duty  on  certain  articles  first  and  gradually  lowered,  while 
the  bill  under  consideration  was  progressive.  The  govern 
ment  was  incapable  from  its  elevation  of  assuming  control 
of  individual  employments.  Hayne,  like  the  speakers  in 
the  House,  contended  that  the  fact  that  the  imports  exceed 
the  exports  was  always  to  be  accepted  as  a  prosperous  state 
of  our  commerce.  But  in  a  series  of  years  the  whole 
amount  of  imports  and  exports  must  balance  each  other: 
The  profits  in  the  various  industries,  he  argued,  would  be 
equalized  by  the  prices,  and  these  would  be  regulated  by 
an  unerring  standard  common  to  all  pursuits :  the  interest 
on  the  capital,  and  the  wages  of  labor.  "  If,"  he  said,, 
"the  act  of  1816  had  saved  the  cotton  factories  and  the 
want  of  protection  had  destroyed  the  woollen,  then  the  fail 
ures  would  have  taken  place  exclusively  among  the  latter. 
But  what  was  the  fact  ?  Why,  four-fifths  of  all  the.  manu 
factories  which  failed  in  New  England  were  of  coarse  cotton 
goods,"  which  were  protected.3  The  argument  throughout, 
too  long  for  statement  here,  was  not  only  ingenious,  but 
abounded  in  facts  illustrating  the  subject.  As  to  the  con- 

1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  595-615. 
3  That  above  four  and  a  half  cents  the  square  yard  after  June  30, 
1825.     The  speech  is  found  at  p.  618  of  the  Annals. 
*  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  634. 


118         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

stitutionality  of  the  measure,  he  insisted  that  "  no  power 
can  be  exercised  by  Congress  which  is  not  expressly  granted 
or  which  is  not  clearly  incident  to  such  a  grant."  1  The 
claim  that  encouragement  for  manufactures  was  needed  was 
denied.  He  had  himself  examined  twenty  or  thirty  manu 
facturing  establishments  and  found  evidences  of  prosperity. 
The  motion  to  strike  out  the  five  and  a  half  cents  duty  on 
cotton  bagging  was  carried  after  further  debate.2  It  was 
strenuously  resisted  by  Kentucky. 

The  discussion  on  May  1,  3,  4,  and  5  is  in  part  merely 
indicated  in  the  reports.  Elliott,  of  Georgia,  moved  to 
strike  out  the  proviso  which  established  a  mini 
mum  upon  the  duties  on  cotton  cloths  and 
cotton  twist,  yarn  or  thread  were  to  be  calculated.3  He 
showed  that  the  bill  affected  the  South,  which  produced 
more  than  four-sixths  of  the  domestic  exports,  by  both 
diminishing  the  planters7  receipts  and  increasing  their  ex 
penditures.4  John  Taylor,  of  Caroline,  reviewed  the  projects 
which  he  said  had  "heretofore  promised  national  blessings 
and  inflicted  national  calamities."  These  were  the  conver 
sion  of  a  part  of  the  national  currency  soon  after  the  Revo 
lution  ;  the  assumption  of  the  State  debts ;  national  banking ; 
the  tariff;  the  pension  law.5  He  spoke  of  the  protected 
manufacturers  as  "  a  pecuniary  aristocracy,"  and  of  the  bill 
as  "  a  bill  of  bargains  to  enrich"  them. 

On  the  other  side  Dickerson,  of  New  Jersey,  thus  summed 
up  the  argument  for  the  measure  :  "  So  that  under  the  pres 
ent  state  of  things  the  grain-growing  States,  consisting  of 
at  least  two-thirds  of  the  population  of  the  Union,  are 
compelled  to  take  of  European  manufacturers  to  the  amount 
of  twelve  millions  of  dollars ;  that  six  or  seven  States  may 
have  the  advantage  of  sending  remittances  in  payment  of 
those  manufactures  and  selling  their  bills  for  the  same  at  an 
extravagant  advance ;  in  consequence  of  which  the  wealth 


1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  648. 
9  Ibid.,  p.  652.  8  Ibid.,  p.  662. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  672.  6  Ibid.,  p.  676. 


THE    TARIFF—  1820-1828.  119 

of  the  grain-growing  States  is  flowing  in  a  constant  stream 
to  the  States  producing  rice,  cotton,  and  tobacco."  l  This 
speech  was  a  strong  ad  captandum  effort  to  hand  together 
the  Middle  and  Western  States  against  the  South  and  the 
importing  interest.  A  special  appeal  was  also  made  to  "  the 
laboring  classes."  Motions  by  Hayne  and  Eaton  to  reduce 
the  minimum  on  cotton  goods  were  lost,  but  Holmes's 
motion  to  reduce  from  thirty-five  to  thirty  was  successful.3 
By  one  majority  the  motion  of  Elliott,  above  referred  to, 
was  negatived.3  The  additional  duty  of  fifteen  per  cent. 
on  distilled  spirits  was  stricken  out  on  a  New  Englander's 
motion. 

The  debate  on  the  6th  of  May  was  first  on  a  proposition 
to  strike  out  the  clause  imposing  a  duty  on  unmanufactured 
wool.     As  the  result  of  the  consideration  the 
following  decisions  were  reached:  Unmanufac-    Reduction  of 


tured  wool  was  reduced  to  thirty  per  cent,  ad 

tured  wool. 

valorem.  The  highest  duty  on  wool,  thirty- 
seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  was  stricken  'out.* 
The  next  day  Rufus  King  proposed  to  make  the  duty  on 
worsted  stuffs  and  blankets  only  twenty-five  per  centum. 
His  colleague,  Van  Buren,  voted  "  nay."  On  all  these  votes 
Benton  favored  "  the  American  policy."  The  votes  resulted, 
—  on  the  former,  ayes  twenty-seven,  noes  twenty  ;  on  the 
latter,  yeas  twenty-  four,  nays  twenty-three.5  The  Seriate 
placed  various  cheap  cotton  manufactures,  as  duck,  osna- 
burg,  etc.,  at  fifteen  per  cent.  It  also  decided  that  woollen 
goods  not  exceeding  in  value  thirty-three  and  a  third  cents 
the  square  yard  should  be  subject  to  a  duty  not  higher  than 
twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem.6  By  decisive  majorities 
scythes,  cutting  knives,  shovels,  etc.,  were  changed  from 
specific  to  ad  valorem  duties.7  The  proposition  of  Hayne  to 
substitute  an  ad  valorem  for  a  pound  duty  on  books  was  car 
ried  on  the  8th  of  May  by  a  small  majority,  and  by  a  smaller 

1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  697. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  701.  3  Ibid.,  p.  702. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  706-708.  5  Ibid.,  p.  711. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  714.  7  Ibid.,  p.  718. 


120         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

fixed  at  twenty-five  per  centum.1  The  Senate  refused  to 
strike  out  the  proposed  duty  on  wheat,  wheat  flour,  and 
potatoes.  The  bill  was  reported  on  the  10th 
of  May  with  several  amendments,  most  of  the 
important  of  which  were  concurred  in  on  the  following  day.2 
Hemp  remained  as  before,  at  thirty-five  dollars  per  ton. 
The  Senate  also  disagreed  to  the  vote  by  which  the  duty  on 
iron  was  stricken  out.  The  vote  was  twenty-one  to  twenty- 
six  on  the  amendment.3  There  was  a  large  majority  for 
concurrence  in  the  amendment  striking  out  the  proposed 
additional  duty  on  spirits.  On  motion  of  Dickerson  specific 
duties  were  added  on  Latin  and  Greek  books,  bound  at 
fifteen  cents  per  pound,  unbound  at  thirteen  cents.  On 
motion  of  Macon  the  duty  on  cotton  bagging  was  stricken 
The  bin  passes  ou^  ^J  a  vo^e  °f  twenty-five  to  twenty-two.4 
the  senate.  After  long  speeches  by  Hayne  and  Smith,  of 
Maryland,5  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  it  passed  by  the  follow 
ing  vote :  Yeas,  Barton,  Bell,  Benton,  Brown,  Chandler, 
D'Wolf,  Dickerson,  Eaton,  Edwards,  Findlay,  Holmes 
(Maine),  Jackson,  Johnson  (Kentucky),  Knight,  Lanman, 
Lowrie,  Mcllvaine,  Noble,  Palmer,  Ruggles,  Seymour,  Tal- 
bot,  Taylor  (Indiana),  Thomas,  and  Van  Buren, — twenty- 
five.  Nays,  Barbour,  Branch,  Clayton,  Elliott,  Gaillard, 
Hayne,  Holmes  (Mississippi),  H.  Johnston  (Louisiana),  J.  S. 
Johnston  (Louisiana),  Kelly,  King  (Alabama),  King  (New 
York),  Lloyd  (Massachusetts),  Macon,  Mills,Parrott,  Smith, 
Taylor  (Virginia),  Van  Dyke,Ware,  and  Williams, — twenty- 
one.6 

The  bill  was  sent  to  the  House  for  action  upon  the  amend- 

1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  720. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  726,  730.  3  Ibid.,  p.  731.  4  Ibid.,  p.  733. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  738-743.     Smith  said  that  the  increase  in  duties  as  pro 
posed  by  the  House  would  be  four  millions  and  a  quarter,  and  that 
his  calculation  was  "bottomed"  on  the  report  of  the  Eegister  of  the 
Treasury.     The  President  had  said  in  his  message  that  an  addition 
to  the  revenue  was  not  wanted.     [Indeed,   the  President  said  that 
there  would  be  a  surplus  of  nearly  nine  million  dollars  on  the  1st  of 
January.] 

6  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  743. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  121 

ments.     Here  it  was  referred  on  the  same  day  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Manufactures,  which  reported  on  the  14th  of  May.1 
The  bill  and  amendments  were  considered  in 
the  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  day  subse 
quent.2    With  a  slight  addition  the  Senate  amendment  for 
fifteen  per   cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  various 

Most  of  the  Sen- 
Cheap  manufactures  of  cotton  was  agreed  to.    ate  amend- 

The  Senate  amendment  for  twenty-five  per  cent.    ™ents  a&reed 
on  worsted  goods  and  blankets  was  also  adopted. 
Among  other  Senate  amendments  which  were  accepted  by 
the   House  of  Representatives  were  one  relating  to  silks 
imported  from  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  one  de 
creasing  the  minimum  of  cotton  goods,  one  striking  out  so 
much  of  the  prospective  duty  on  wool  as  increased  the  duty 
by  an  annual  addition  of  five  per  cent.,  from  thirty  until  it 
reached  fifty  per  cent.,  and  another  striking  out  the  duty 
on  foreign  distilled  spirits.     The  House  stood 

,„,,,„  ,  But  the  House 

by  four  and  a  half  cents  on  cotton  bagging,  but    stood  by  its 
at  first  gave  up  the  higher  duty.     But  the  vote    action  on  cotton 

.  ,    r   ,  ,  J         ,    ,    ,  f  ,        bagging. 

was  reconsidered,  and  a  prolonged  debate  fol 
lowed.  By  a  vote  of  eighty-two  to  one  hundred  and  eight 
the  clause  of  the  Senate  amendment  striking  out  the  duty 
was  negatived.  The  result  of  the  final  action  of  the  House 
was  therefore  to  strike  out  five  and  a  half  cents  and  insert 
four  and  a  half  cents  as  the  duty. 

The  Senate  stood  out  for  its  amendments,  and  a  confer 
ence  was  appointed  on  the  17th  of  May.3    A    Mayi7. 
report  was  made  on  the  following  day,  and  after    conference. 
a  prolonged  debate  was  adopted.     Cotton  bagging  was  the 
chief  point  of  difference.     In  the  Senate  J.  S.  Johnston,  of 
Louisiana,  said  that  it  was  a  question  between  the  Western 
and  the  cotton-planting  States.     Not  one  item,  he  afiirmed, 
which  had  been  introduced  could  benefit  the  latter.     By  a 
vote  of  twenty-one  to  twenty-five   the   Senate   refused  to 
recede  from  its  amendment  by  which  the  duty  on  cotton 

1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  2607,  2620. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  2622-2629.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  2631,  2635. 


122          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

bagging  was  stricken  out.  The  other  leading  point  of  diffi 
culty  was  the  article  of  woollens.  The  settlement  effected 
May  19  on  May  19  was  as  follows  :  The  House  receded 

settlement  as  to  woollens,  with  an  amendment ;  the  Senate, 
as  to  cotton  bagging  with  a  modification  of  price.  The 
effect  of  the  first  part  of  the  agreement  was  to  charge  all 
manufactures  of  wool,  except  flannels  and  baizes,  the  actual 
value  of  which  at  the  place  from  which  imported  should  not 
exceed  thirty-three  and  a  third  cents  per  square  yard,  with 
a  duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  subjected 
articles  having  wool  as  a  component  part  to  the  same  duties 
as  other  wool  manufactures.  By  the  second  part  of  the 
report  the  specific  duty  of  four  and  a  half  cents  per  square 
yard  on  cotton  bagging  was  reduced  to  three  and  three- 
fourths  of  a  cent.1  It  was  Senator  J.  S.  Johnston's  propo 
sition.  The  House  yielded  most  in  the  arrangement.  The 
Southerners  were  victorious  in  the  matter  of  the  cotton 
bagging.  Many  of  the  amendments  adopted  by  the  Senate 
were  adverse  to  the  views  of  the  extreme  protectionists. 
But  the  measure  as  a  whole  was  the  most  radical  step  which 
had  yet  been  taken  to  promote  the  interests  of  manufactures 
and  of  those  agricultural  products  supposed  to  be  dependent 
upon  American  manufactures. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Nineteenth  Congress  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Commerce  and  Manufactures  was  divided,  a 
Nineteenth  committee  for  each  subject  having  been  created 
congress.  after  a  proposition  from  a  Pennsylvania  member 

for  a  jointure  of  the  subjects  of  agriculture  and  manufact 
ures  had  been  rejected.2 

A  bill  was  reported  on  the  10th  of  January,  1827,  in  the 
second  session  of  the  Nineteenth  Congress  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  "  for  the  alteration  of  the  acts  imposing 


1  Annals  of  Eighteenth  Congress,  p.  2675.     The  vote  on  concurring  in 
the  report  was  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  ayes  to  sixty-six  noes. 
Ibid.,  p.  2674. 

2  Made  by  Findlay.     Register  of  Debates,  pp.  1-4.     From  this  time  the 
Annals  of  Congress  become  the  Register  of  Debates. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  123 

duties  on  imports."1  This  was  known  familiarly  as  the 
Woollens  Bill.  Its  provisions  were  very  comprehensively 
stated  and  its  principles  ingeniously  discussed  Jg27  The 
by  Mallary,  when  the  measure  came  to  be  con-  woollens  BUI. 
sidered,  a  week  later,  in  committee  of  the  whole.2  JaD 
He  said  that  the  value  of  the  manufacturing  interest  was 
forty  million  dollars ;  of  flocks  dependent  on  manufactures, 
twenty  million  dollars ;  landed  interest  devoted  to  the  use 
of  the  flocks,  twenty  million  dollars  more, — in  all,  eighty 
million  dollars  was  the  amount  of  capital  involved  in  the 
bill  before  the  House.  This  great  capital  was  in  jeopardy. 
It  stood  on  the  brink  of  ruin.  The  tactics  of  British  man 
ufacturers,  he  claimed,  gave  them  great  advantage.  Four- 
fifths  of  the  goods  were  sold  by  agents,  who  made  their 
invoices  as  they  pleased,  and  there  was  ample  evidence  that 
such  goods  did  not  pay  the  amount  of  duties  demanded  by 
the  tariff.  Auction  sales  were  another  means  of  promoting 
their  interest  at  the  expense  of  the  American  manufacturer. 
Cambreleng  replied.  He  said  that  when  the  proper  time 
arrived  for  vindicating  the  principles  of  free  trade  he  trusted 
that  he  should  be  able  to  prove  that  they  were  of  American 
and  not  of  British  origin.3  Considering  the  effects  of  the  bill, 
he  contended  that  one  of  them  would  be  to  charge  a  duty 
of  two  hundred  per  cent,  on  coarse  woollen  fabrics  used  by 
laborers,  farmers,  and  mariners.  It  would  be  prohibitory. 
It  was  not  a  time  to  tamper  with  the  tariff  when  our  rev 
enue  was  declining.4  Woollen  manufacturers  had  specu 
lated  largely  and  unwisely,  having  increased  the  capital 
employed  from  ten  to  fifty  millions.  The  next  day  Bu 
chanan,  saying  he  could  not  consent  to  any  tariff  which 
would  protect  the  woollen  interest  alone,  and  that  the  time 
for  legislation  was  too  short,  moved  to  discharge  the  commit 
tee  of  the  whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  subject, 
and  gave  notice  if  that  motion  failed  that  he  would  move 
to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  McLane,  too,  like  Buchanan,  a 

1  Register  of  Debates,  Nineteenth  Congress,  p.  732. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  733-744.  8  Ibid.,  p.  744.  *  Ibid.,  p.  745. 


124         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

strong  protectionist,  was  not  prepared  to  support  the  meas 
ure  in  its  present  shape.1  Others  joined  in  criticising  the 
bill,  which  was  defended  by  Mallary,  Davis,  and  Pearce. 
It  was  justified  on  the  ground  that  it  would  prevent  fraud 
on  the  treasury.  It  was  opposed  because  of  its  feature  of 
total  prohibition.2  Mallary,  who  was,  with  Davis,  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  the  main  stay  of  the  bill  in  debate,  said  that  the 
effect  would  not  be  great  except  on  the  class  of  goods  below 
one  dollar  and  fifty  cents.3  He  estimated  that  one  million 
five  hundred  and  eighty-nine  thousand  dollars  might  be 
excluded  by  the  bill.  He  did  not  give  an  explicit  answer 
to  Cambreleng's  questions  whether  he  (Mallary)  wished  to 
have  a  duty  beyond  thirty-three  per  cent,  and  whether  his 
purpose  was  to  revise  the  tariff  or  merely  to  enforce  the  ex 
isting  duty.  Most  of  the  advocates  of  the  bill  denied  that  it 
was  prohibitory.4  The  motion  to  discharge  the  committee 
of  the  whole  was  negatived,  by  a  vote  of  seventy- six  to  one 

hundred  and  twelve,  on  the  23d  of  January. 

Various  proposed  amendments  were  rejected. 
As  reported,  the  minima  were  forty  cents,  two  dollars  and 
fifty  cents,  and  four  dollars ;  but  a  second  minimum  at  one 
dollar  and  fifty  cents  was  proposed  by  Barney,  and  adopted.5 
The  minimum  principle  was  objected  to  by  some  of  the 
friends  of  protection.6  Stewart  defended  it  and  the  gen 
eral  principles  of  the  bill  with  ability.7  Cook's  motion 
to  recommit,  supported  by  Buchanan  and  other  protection 
ists,  was  barely  lost  when  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania,  also 
moved  to  recommit.  »The  debate  was  prosecuted  by  Archer, 
who  raised  constitutional  objections;  by  Bryan,  who  said 
that,  although  the  South  had  lost  one-third  in  the  value 
of  an  increased  crop  in  the  year,  it  had  not  called  for  re 
lief  from  the  government;  by  Drayton,  who  denied  that 
there  were  frauds  in  the  revenue,  and  who  asserted  that 


1  Register  .of  Debates,  pp.  747-749,  785.  2  Ibid.,  p.  786. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  797  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  p.  874. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  891.  6  Ibid.,  p.  902. 

7  Ibid.,  pp.  904-911. 


THE   TARIFF— 1820-1828.  125 

Britain's  policy  was  more  liberal  than  ours  in  that  she  re 
pealed  restrictions  against  foreign  nations  in  her  colonial 
trade,  while  we  continued  restrictions  on  her  "West  India 
imports  for  eighteen  months,  and  compelled  her  to  revoke 
her  policy.1     The  motion  to  recommit  was  rejected, — one 
hundred  and  one  to  one  hundred  and  four.    Sev 
eral  hostile  amendments  were  lost.2     On  the  8th 
of  February  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  its 
third  reading.     It  was  then  debated  with  great 
earnestness.    On  the  10th  of  February  it  passed 
the  House  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  six  to    Bil1 
ninety-five.     The  votes  on  the  different  stages 
of  the  measure  were  all  very  close.3 

Buchanan  exerted  himself  greatly  against  this  bill.  Ing- 
ham,  McLane,  and  other  old  protectionists  were 

r  Change  of  posi- 

also  conspicuous  in  opposition.     The  Southern    tion  by  some  of 

vote  was  nearly  solid  against  it.     The  Western    J^^jjf  pr£ 

members  were  divided,  but  a  majority  supported    was  a  NewEng- 

the  measure.    Webster  voted  "  yea."    As  it  was    ] 

a  New  England  bill  it  was  sustained  by  the  New  England 

members. 

The  Woollens  Bill  was  referred  in  the  Senate  on  the  13th 
of  February,  after  debate,  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures. 
Two  days  later  it  was  reported.  On  the  19th  of 
this  month  debate  was  resumed  on  the  motion  February  13,  is, 
to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Finance  Committee.  The  ^ In  the  Sen" 
motion  was  defeated,  as  were  two  motions  by 
Benton  to  recommit  with  instructions  to  equalize  the  duties 
on  unmanufactured  wool  and  wool  in  the  skin  with  that  on 
cloth,  and  to  prohibit  after  January  1, 1828,  the  importa 
tion  of  foreign  unmanufactured  wool.  Another  motion,  by 
Macon,  to  recommit,  with  instructions  to  report  as  to  the  effect 
on  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  finances,  was  also  rejected. 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  944,  968,  976.  2  Ibid.,  p.  996. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  1028-1099.  By  ninety-seven  to  eighty-five,  the  demand 
for  the  previous  question  was  sustained  ;  by  ninety  to  one  hundred  and 
nine,  the  House  refused  to  adjourn  ;  by  one  hundred  and  two  to  ninety- 
eight,  it  voted  to  put  the  main  question. 


126         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

The  voting  was  close,  as  in  the  House.1  The  Congress  was 
nearing  the  end,  and  the  Senate  refused  to  lay  aside  the 
military  appropriation  bill  to  consider  the  woollens  measure. 
On  the  motion  of  Hayne  the  latter  was,  on  the 
The  bill  lost  by  28th  of  February,  laid  on  the  table  by  twenty- 
caihoun's  cast-  t  twenty,  Vice-President  Calhoun  having 

ing  vote.  *  ' 

changes  since  given  the  casting  vote.  Thus  the  bill  was  lost.2 
In  the  course  of  its  consideration  we  have  ob 
served  a  number  of  personal  changes  since  1824.  Henceforth 
Mr.  Webster  is  to  stand  with  his  section  in  favor  of  protection. 
Pennsylvania  Democrats  are  to  support  a  modified  protec 
tion,  more  on  the  principle  of  incidental  protection  than 
heretofore.  Old  Federalists,  like  McLane,  are  to  co-operate 
with  the  Democratic  party  and  oppose  the  ultra  protective 
policy.  The  Vice-President  is  ever  after  to  be  leader  of 
those  State-rights  Democrats  who  lean  towards  the  doc 
trine  of  free  trade. 

Dickerson's  bill  to  distribute  annually  for  four  years, 
beginning  with  the  1st  day  of  January,  1828,  five  million 
dollars  among  the  States  in  the  ratio  of  direct  taxation,  was 
laid  on  the  table  at  this  session  after  an  elaborate  speech  of 
explanation  had  been  made  by  its  author.3 

A  bill  for  the  reduction  of  special  duties  on  salt  passed 
the  Senate  after  considerable  debate  at  the  same  session. 
It  was  stoutly  opposed  by  the  New  York  Sen 
ators,  Sanford  and  Van  Buren.4      Woodbury 
urged  that  it  was  a  war  measure ;  that  its  reduction  would 
not  seriously  affect  treasury  operations ;  that  consumption 
had  nearly  doubled  in  England  upon  the  cutting  off  of 
thirteen-fifteenths  of  the  salt  excise,  and  that  the  bill  would 
leave  the  manufactures  of  salt  protected  three  times  as  much 
as  those  of  iron,  woollen  cloths,  or  gunpowder.5     On  the 

1  The  votes  on  Benton's  motions  were,  on  the  first,  twenty-three  ayes 
to  twenty-four  noes ;  on  the  second,  twenty -two  yeas  to  twenty-five 
nays. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  337,  348,  381,  387,  390,  488,  496. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  209-223.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  230,  245. 
6  Ibid.,  pp.  232-239. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  127 

other  side,  it  was  denied  that  manufacturers  reaped  one 
hundred  per  cent,  by  the  duty.1  A  general  bill  to  reduce 
this  duty  was  laid  on  the  table  December  20,  1827.2 

A  bill  also  passed  the  Senate  reducing  the    Teas,  wines, 
duties  on  teas,  wines,  and  coffee.3    It  failed  in    coflee- 
the  House. 

On   the   last   day  of  January,  1828,  Mallary,  from   the 
Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  a  tariff    1828january3i 
measure,  consideration  of  which  was  begun  in    The  tariff  bm  of 
committee  of  the  whole  on  the  3d  of  March, 
and  continued,  with  only  occasional  interruptions,  until  the 
22d  of  April  following.* 

Mallary  spoke  for  two  days,  and  for  the  most  part  em 
ployed  the  arguments  in  vogue  since  1816  in  defence  of  the 
protective  theory.5  The  policy  of  protection  was 
necessary  in  order  to  prevent  a  most  powerful 
and  dangerous  monopoly, — that  of  the  mercantile  interest  on 
the  seaboard, — which  he  called  a  moneyed  aristocracy  that 
would  be  resistless.  In  1826  the  Southern  exports  were  nine 
teen  million  and  thirty-nine  thousand  dollars;  for  all  the  rest 
of  the  United  States  the  exports  were  only  one  million,  three 
hundred  and  sixty-one  thousand  dollars  in  amount.  He 
stated  that  the  efficient  protection  on  bar- iron,  with  duty, 
exchange,  and  freight,  was  above  one  hundred  per  cent. 
The  proposed  duty  in  addition  was  four  dollars  and  forty- 
four  cents  on  hammered  and  seven  dollars  on  rolled  iron. 
The  protection  on  the  first  was  sixty-seven  per  cent.,  on 
the  last  one  hundred  and  twenty-one.  Pig-iron  was  ad 
vanced  twenty-five  per  cent.,  steel  fifty  per  cent.,  or  one 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  239. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  603.     After  discussion.     It  was  by  Harrison,  and  contem 
plated  a  reduction  from  twenty  to  fifteen  cents  the  first  year,  and  ten 
cents  the  following  years.     Register  of  Debates,  p.  3. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  346  ;  Journal,  p.  185. 

4  Register  of  Debates  of  Twentieth  Congress,  pp.  1274-2471.     Only  the 
heads  of  discussion  with  a  few  of  the  more  cogent  points  in  quotation 
will  be  furnished,  as  much  of  it  was  a  mere  repetition  of  previous  tariff 
debates. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  1729-1749. 


128          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  hundred.  In  regard  to 
woollen  manufactures,  he  assigned  as  causes  of  depression 
the  low  price  of  wool  in  Europe  as  most  important,  then 
sales  at  auction  and  credit  for  revenue  duties,  also  evasions 
of  the  duties  and  the  irregularity  of  the  market.  He  said 
that  the  tariff  of  1816  revived  hopes,  but  only  for  disap 
pointment.  The  tariff  of  1824  was  delusive.  Differing 
from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  he  did  not  wish  for 
an  additional  duty  on  wool.  Indeed,  he  was  fully  confident 
such  a  duty  would  drive  the  manufacturer  out  of  the  coun 
try.  He  would  prefer  a  specific  duty  of  eighteen  or  twenty 
cents  on  wool  costing  more  than  eight  cents  a  pound.  The 
bill  proposed  seven  cents  specific  duty  and  an  increasing 
duty  to  fifty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  He  complained  of  the 
small  difference  in  minima,  which  in  the  bill  was  fifty  cents 
and  one  dollar  for  the  lower  grades.  He  proposed  to  fix 
the  first  year's  duty  at  forty  per  cent,  for  coarser  fabrics, 
with  a  rise  of  five  per  cent,  until  fifty  should  be  reached. 
The  second  minimum  he  would  make  two  dollars  and  fifty 
cents.  The  proposed  hemp  duty  was  too  large,  and  he 
opposed  the  additional  duty  on  molasses  because  it  would 
injure  an  important  trade  in  the  Eastern  States.  "New 
England  takes  your  flour ;  Europe  does  not,"  he  ingeniously 
argued.  Barney  antagonized  Mallary's  amendment.  He 
also  offered  testimony  as  to  the  inferiority  of  American 
flax.1  Stevenson,  of  Pennsylvania,  a  member  of 

Stevenson.  '•»  «•  . 

the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  in  advocating 
the  bill,  stated  that  the  product  of  pig-iron  in  the  United 
States  was  one  hundred  and  one  thousand  tons  or  sixty-seven 
thousand  tons  hammered  bar-iron.  Three-tenths  of  what 
was  used  was  imported.2  He  contended  that  the  aggregate 
increase  of  protection  to  the  wool-grower  was  two  hundred 
and  fifty-one  thousand,  two  hundred  and  seventy-six  dollars,8 
He  admitted  that  duties  were  placed  comparatively  high  on 
the  more  costly  woollens.  This  speech  was  in  reply  to  Mal- 

1  Register  of  Debates  of  Twentieth  Congress,  p.  1751. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  1760.  » Ibid.,  p.  1768. 


THE    TARIFF— IS20-1828.  129 

lary,  but  he  combated  Webster's  argument  in  the  matter 
of  the  molasses  tax.  He  said  that  the  duty  had  not  been 
inserted  to  weigh  down  the  bill,  because  in  1824  Clay  was 
its  author.1  He  advocated  protection  of  agricultural  prod 
ucts  as  well  as  of  manufactures.  Anderson,  of  Maine, 
attacked  the  bill  as  prohibitory.2  There  was  no  necessity 
for  raising  duties  on  iron,  steel,  spirits,  hemp,  flax,  and 
molasses,  and  he  disputed  the  claim  that  woollen  manufac 
tures  were  depressed  more  than  other  industries.  Claiborne 
thought  that "  incessant  augmentation  of  duties 

.  °  Claiborne. 

on  imported  articles  to  favor  manufacturers  was 
a  dangerous  procedure." 3  Some  of  the  nations  of  the  earth 
might  also  prohibit  some  of  our  great  staples.  The  vast 
and  valuable  products  of  the  South  were  as  important  to 
the  North  as  they  were  to  the  South,  because  they  gave 
employment  to  ships  and  seamen.4  Wright,  of  New  York, 
avowed  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  report  accompanying 
the  bill.  He  stated  that "  one  leading  principle  which  oper 
ated  upon  his  mind  in  the  formation  of  the 
present  bill  was  that  it  was  not  and  could  not 
be  the  policy  of  this  government  or  of  this  Congress  to  turn 
the  manufacturing  capital  of  this  country  to  the  manufact 
ure  of  a  raw  material  of  a  foreign  country  while  we  did  or 
could  produce  the  same  material  in  sufficient  quantities 
ourselves."  Replying  to  Mallary,  he  said  he  believed  that 
the  United  States  now  produced  sufficient  quantities  of 
coarse  wool  for  every  demand  of  present  manufactures. 
But  if  that  was  not  the  case,  he  asked  if  it  was  sound  policy 
to  import  the  wool  free  of  duty.  His  whole  argument  on 
this  head  was  based  on  supposition.  He  had  no  certain 
data  for  wool-growing  except  the  figures  for  New  York  in 
1825.  But  he  estimated  the  whole  number  of  sheep  at 
thirteen  million,  eight  hundred  and  nine  thousand,  six 
hundred  and  seventy-eight.  "Suppose,"  he  continued, 
"  sixty  millions  to  be  the  correct  amount  consumed  of  woollen 

1  Register  of  Debates  of  Twentieth  Congress,  p.  1771. 
J  Ibid.,  p.  1773.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1793.  4  Ibid.,  p.  1794. 

9 


130          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

goods  in  the  country."  The  value  of  the  raw  wool  was 
half  the  face  value.  Of  the  supposed  sixty  millions  not  far 
from  fifty  millions  were  manufactured  in  the  United  States. 
The  manufactures  upon  the  seaboard  used  none  of  the 
coarse  domestic  wool  of  the  country.  He  declared  that 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the  manufacture  of  coarse  wool 
had  increased  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  the  importa 
tion  of  the  material.  He  asked  if  Congress  would  adopt  a 
provision  the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  repeal  the  duty 
already  imposed  upon  foreign  wool.  He  stated  the  general 
rule  to  be  that  the  cost  of  wool  and  the  cost  of  manufactur 
ing  it  into  cloth  were  about  equal.  In  order,  however,  to 
give  the  American  manufacturer  equal  advantage  it  was 
necessary  to  add  sufficient  duty  to  amount  to  sixty-five  per 
cent,  upon  the  cost  in  England  of  the  wool  used  there,  as 
the  Americans  paid  a  medium  price  of  sixty-five  per  cent, 
more  for  their  raw  wool  used  in  manufacture  than  their 
English  rivals  did.  He  differed  from  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  and  thought  that  fifty  per  cent,  would  pay  the 
duty,  costs,  and  charges.1  On  the  12th  of  March,  Davis, 
of  Massachusetts,  replied  to  Stevenson  and  Wright.  lie 
March  12.  contended  that  the  early  policy  upon  revenue 

Davis.  measures  was  protective  and   not  merely  for 

revenue.2  He  said  that  the  prices  of  most  woollen  goods, 
such  as  negro  cloths,  flannels,  coarse  cassimeres,  satinettes, 
and  broadcloths,  had  been  reduced  by  the  duty  forty  to 
fifty  per  cent.  Yet  he  made  this  admission  :  "  I  believe  I 
hazard  nothing  in  saying  that  most  branches  of  manufact 
uring  in  this  country  have  been  commenced  and  prosecuted 
to  a  considerable  extent  unaided  by  any  special  legislative  in 
terference."3  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  statement  were 
thus  met :  "  It  seems  paradoxical  that  a  branch  of  industry 
requiring  mechanical  skill  and  capital  should  in  the  hands 
of  inexperienced  men  establish  itself  and  rise  by  its  vigor 
into  sufficient  magnitude  and  importance  to  attract  the 


1  For  Wright's  speech,  see  Kegister  of  Debates,  pp.  1835-1870. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  1883.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1887. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828.  131 

notice  of  the  nation,  and  then  be  unable  to  maintain  itself." 
He  undertook  to  give  the  explanation.  The  price  had  fallen 
and  England,  having  overstocked  the  market,  was  able  to 
hold  up,  while  domestic  manufacturers  were  driven  to  ask 
protection.  He  opposed  Wright's  reasoning  respecting  the 
sufficiency  for  our  market  of  American  cheap  wool  on  two 
grounds :  1,  It  was  not  as  cheap  as  the  imported  article ; 
2,  it  was  not  obtainable.1  "  Whatever,"  said  this  Repre 
sentative  of  Massachusetts,  "  means  to  aid  the  wool-grower 
must  place  the  manufacturer  in  a  condition  to  purchase." 
Martindale  said,  u  Cotton  is  cheaper  here  than  in  England, 
and  yet  the  American  manufacturer  needs  protection." 
Labor,  he  explained,  was  lower  in  England.  "  You  must," 
he  insisted,  u  regulate  prices  here  by  the  cost  of  production 
here,  the  only  standard  of  value  here." 2  Barnard,  a  pro 
tectionist,  said  that  it  was  national  and  not 

Barnard. 

individual   monopoly  that  was  wanted.3     He 
declared  that  if  the  proposed  reduction  on  cloths  costing 
fifty  cents  and  under  was  made  he  would  not  vote  for  the 
bill ;   and  he  supported  Mallary's  substitute.     Ingham  on 
the  18th  and  Hoffman  on  the  20th  and  25th  of  March  op 
posed  the  amendment  and  supported  the  original    Incrham 
measure.4     The  latter  stated  that  the  total  num-    Hoffman. 
her  of  sheep  in  the  United  States  was  twenty- 
two  millions.     The  square  yard  duty  of  sixteen  cents  pro 
posed  in  the  bill  was  equal  to  sixty  per  cent,  on  fifty  cent 
cloth.     He  thought   that   that  was  abundant  protection. 
Labor,  this  speaker  asserted,  was  as  cheap  in  the  United 
States  as  it  was  in  England.5     Compared  with  this  bill  the 
celebrated  Woollens  Bill  of  1827  was  weak  and  defective. 
The  latter  did  not  in  any  case  affect  to  raise  the  duty  except 
in  so  far  as  the  minimums  could  do  it.6    He  replied  to 
Barnard's  charge  that  there  was  a  bargain  between  the 
friends  of  the  bill  and  the  Southern  members  by  a  general 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1890.         2  Ibid.,  p.  1906. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1930.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  1938,  1958. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  1988.  •  Ibid.,  p.  1992. 


132         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE.  , 

denial  of  its  truth.  Both  gentlemen  were  excited  in  the 
discussion.  A  Massachusetts  member  declared  that  there 
was  not  only  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject, 
but  that  pledges  had  been  given  in  1789,  1816, 
and  1824  that  legislation  for  the  protection  of  manufactures 
should  follow  :  the  effect  of  which  argument  was  that  the 
giving  of  one  loaf  made  it  necessary  to  give  two,  four,  eight, 
and  so  on  ad  infinitum.1  He  contended  that  the  duties  in  the 
bill  were  too  low  at  the  minimum  points ;  that  these  points 
were  too  near  each  other,  and  that  the  duty  upon  wool  was 
disproportionately  high,  so  reducing  the  duty  upon  woollens, 
or  so  affecting  the  bill  that  it  defeated  itself.2  Denying  that 
protection  was  a  political  measure,  he  said  he  was  friendly 
to  the  administration  because  it  supported  the  American 
system.  This  member  (Bates)  made  an  indirect  admission 
that  the  bill  was  throughout  obnoxious  to  the  objection  that 
the  duties  were  excessive.3  Forward,  of  Penn- 

Forward.  .  .-11 

sylvama,  maintained  that  American  wool  was 
sufficient  for  the  domestic  market.  Mallary's  amendment 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  seventy-eight  to  one  hundred  and 
two.  He  immediately  offered  others  abolishing  the  one 
dollar  minimum.  These  amendments  were  debated  the 

next  day.    Buchanan  opposed  them  with  strong 

Buchanan.  *  *\  . 

arguments.  In  his  opinion  no  combination  ot 
wool-growers  and  woollen  manufacturers  should  even 
attempt  to  dictate  a  tariff  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
He  declared  that  Pennsylvania  had  not  sustained  the  Har- 
risburg  propositions.  The  legislature  drew  the  line  between 
protection  and  prohibition.4  He  said  that  should  the  Mal- 
lary  amendment  be  adopted,  no  goods  between  fifty  cents 
and  two  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents  could  be  imported. 
The  Woollens  Bill  of  1827  differed  from  the  amendment 
pending  in  that  the  former  proposed  no  increase  of  ad 
valorem  duty  and  it  had  a  minimum  between  fifty  cents  and 
two  dollars  and  fifty  cents.  Under  the  amendment  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1999.  2  Ibid.,  p.  2004. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  2012.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2040. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  133 

ad  valorem  duty  was  increased  from  thirty-three  and  a  third 
to  fifty  per  cent.  Buchanan  admitted  that  more  protec 
tion  was  needed,  but  he  would  give  it  in  "  the  ancient  ad 
valorem  manner."1  Mallary's  and  several  other  amend 
ments  were  rejected.2  Sprague,  on  April  1,  showed  that 
the  bilfr  would  increase  the  duties  on  ship-building  mate 
rials.3 

Buchanan  took  a  large  share  in  the  debates!  His  speeches 
on  this  tariff  appear  to  mark  a  dividing  line  on  the  tariff 
question.  He  replied  to  the  New  England  pro- 

,.       .   ,      , ,     ,     *  ,,         .  .  A  dividing  line. 

tectionists  that,  if  the  American  system  was  to 
protect  New  England  manufactures  and  abandon  Pennsyl 
vania  farmers,  he  would  rejoice  at  its  grave.4  He  predicted 
that  there  would  be  no  more  exclusive  tariffs  for  the  benefit 
of  any  one  portion  of  the  Union,  and  he  said  explicitly  that 
the  tariff"  of  1824  partook  much  of  this  character.  In  the 
discussions  upon  the  pending  tariff  bill  the  clashing  of  in 
terests  between  the  various  industries  seeking  protection 
was  greater  than  on  any  previous  occasion.  Up  The  soutll 
to  the  time  at  which  we  have  now  arrived  the  breaks  silence. 
Southern  members  had  been  patient  spectators,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  having  taken  no  part  in  the  debates. 
Following  the  sarcastic  speech  of  Buchanan,  Bryan,  of 
North  Carolina,  explained  his  reasons  for  breaking  this 
silence.  He  said  that  the  article  of  molasses  was  one  which 
his  constituents  imported  in  great  quantity  from  the  West 
Indies.  North  Carolina's  only  foreign  trade  was  with  those 
islands.  Her  tonnage,  only  slightly  inferior  to  that  of  Vir 
ginia,  was  greater  than  that  of  any  State  to  the  southward.5 
Carson,  also  from  North  Carolina,  opposed  both  the  pending 
proposition  and  the  bill.6  Stanberry,  of  Ohio,  contended 
that,  if  there  were  any  soundness  in  the  usual  argument  in 
support  of  the  protective  system,  manufactories  in  Ohio 
could  not  flourish  unless  she  could  also  protect  them  against 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  2042.  3  Ibid.,  p.  2050. 

«  Ibid.,  p.  2057.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2092. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  2110-2118. 
*  It  was  on  a  motion  to  increase  the  duty  on  molasses. 


134         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  injurious  effects  of  New  England  competition.1     This 
was  the  Western  argument  as  against  the  Eastern  States, 

The  Western  an(l  ^  was  also  employed  as  against  the  South- 
argument.  ern.  The  same  speaker  said  "that  the  West 
India  planters  cannot  afford  to  receive  American  com 
modities  unless  the  Americans  continue  to  receive5  in  re 
turn  for  them  West  India  produce  is  the  argument  of 
the  Southern  States  against  the  whole  American  system, 
and  this  is  now  the  argument  of  the  Eastern  States  in  oppo 
sition  to  increase  of  duty  on  molasses.  And  just  as  the 
New  England  argument  is  that  England  will  he  compelled 
to  take  and  pay  for  in  cash  our  cotton,  so  the  West  Indies 
will  be  forced  to  have  our  fish  and  lumber,  and  pay  for  them, 
if  need  be,  in  money." 2  Reed,  of  Massachusetts,  accused 
s  chusetts  Pennsylvania  of  giving  New  England  a  tariff 
taunts  Pennsyi-  which  they  did  riot  want,  and  then,  when 
manufacturing  was  stimulated  and  afterwards 
needed  further  support,  refusing  it, — "  the  warm  tariff,"  he 
said,  "  waxed  cold." 3  Moore  complained  that  corn  in  Ken 
tucky  was  fifty  cents  a  barrel,  and  stated  that  hemp  was 
not  of  so  much  importance  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  insist 
on  a  high  duty.  There  were  intimations  that  the  political 
alliance  between  Clay  and  Adams  had  changed  a  part  of 
the  Kentucky  vote  on  the  question  of  taxing  molasses.4 
There  was  a  conflict  between  the  hemp-growers, 

Hemp;  whis-  *    f 

key;  cotton  who  were  also  manufacturers  of  whiskey,  and 
!  m°~  the  cotton-bagging  manufacturers,  who  sought 
the  aid  of  New  England  by  favoring  a  low  mo 
lasses  duty.5  Clark's  amendment,  which  provided  for  such 
n  duty  and  also  a  duty  on  unmanufactured  as  well  as  manu 
factured  hemp,  was  adopted  on  the  4th  of  April.  Twenty- 
two  different  amendments  were  defeated,  when  the  bill  was 
reported  to  the  House  from  the  committee  of  the  whole.6 

On  April  7  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  amend  the  woollen 
schedules,  so  far  as  they  related  to  blankets,  worsted  stuffs, 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  2120.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2122. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  2154.  4  Ibid.,  p.  2175. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  2164,  2178.  6  Ibid.,  p.  2188. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  135 

and  bombazines,  was  followed  by  a  like  effort  (with  a  similar 

tinsuccess)  to  increase  the  duty  on  manufactures  of  hemp 

and  flax  other  than  cotton  bagging.1     Gurley 

and  Moore  held  that  the  promises   made  in 

1824,  that  cotton  bagging  would  be  reduced  in  consequence 

of  the  higher  duty  imposed,  had  not  been  real- 

J  „    .        _  ,  Various  defeats. 

ized.  Little  more  than  half  of  the  demand  was 
supplied.  It  had  been  necessary  in  the  South  to  establish  a 
factory  for  the  making  of  cotton  instead  of  hemp  bagging.2 
Chilton,  for  Kentucky,  complained  not  of  the  price  the  man 
ufacturer  received,  but  of  the  fact  that  so  much  of  the  article 
was  imported.  On  Buchanan's  suggestion,  the  mover  con 
sented  to  five  cents  as  the  duty  in  place  of  five  and  a  half.3 
By  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  twelve  to  seventy-seven  the 
amendment  was  then  adopted.  Thirty  per  cent,  additional 
duty  on  spirits  was  imposed,  the  amendment  of  the  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  having  been  adopted.4 

On  the  subject  of  woollens,  Stewart  said  that  it  was  better, 
evidently,  for  the  farmer  that  the  raw  material  woollens, 
should  be  imported  than  the  manufactured  Stewart. 
article.  For  the  enormous  increase  of  fifteen  to  one  hun 
dred  and  fifty  per  cent,  on  coarse  wool  not  produced  in  the 
country  only  three  and  a  third  per  cent,  increase  was  offered 
to  the  manufacturer.  While  hemp  and  flax  were  raised 
about  one  hundred  per  cent,  their  products,  except 
"duck,"  had  not  been  protected  additionally.  It  was 
nearly  the  same  thing  of  iron  and  its  manufactures.5 
-Stewart  claimed  that  there  had  been  a  great  reduction  of 
prices  under  the  protective  tariff,  and  the  table  he  pre- 
,  sented  appeared  to  bear  out  his  statement.  He  also  alleged 
that  the  tariff  of  1824  had  nearly  doubled  the  cotton  export 
to  Great  Britain  the  following  year.6  Barney,  in  a  subse 
quent  stage  of  the  discussion,  predicted  that  a  number  of 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  2200. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2203.  3  Ibid.,  p.  2208. 

4  This  amendment  was  to  strike  out  ten  and  insert  thirty. — Register 
of  Debates,  p.  2222. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  2224.  6  Ibid.,  p.  2240. 


136          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

railroads  and  projected  railroads  in  various  States  would  be 
interfered  with  by  the  proposed  increase  in  iron  duties. 
The  answer  to  this  was  the  adoption  of  Stevenson's  amend 
ment  extending  the  duty  to  bolt-iron.1 

On  the  same  day  the  discussion  reverted  to  the  principle 
of  minimum  versus  progressive  ad  valorem  duties.  Mallary 
advocated  the  former,  but  yielded  the  floor  to  Buchanan, 
whose  modification  of  the  amendment  of  Mallary  provided 
for  progressive  duties  of  thirty  to  forty  and  forty  to  fifty  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  Ingham's  amendment  of  the  Buchanan 
amendment,  which  was  to  strike  out  the  progressive  duties, 
was  rejected.2  Wright,  of  New  York,  favored  a  return  to 
minimum  duties,  as  being  better  for  the  manufacturers  upon 

their  own  statements.     Finally,  on  the  10th  of 
mini-    -April,  after  an  elaborate  discussion,  the  House 
ma     re-estab-    adopted    Sutherland's   amendment,  which   re 

established  the  original  minima:  fifty  cents, 
one  dollar,  and  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  ;  for  the  first,  forty 
cents  the  square  yard  on  goods  between  two  dollars  and  fifty 
cents  and  four  dollars;  exceeding  four  dollars,  forty-five 
per  cent,  ad  valorem..3  The  high  protectionists  objected  to 
the  one  dollar  minimum.  Sutherland's  amendment,  unlike 
Mallary's,  contained  a  specific  duty  of  four  cents  on  the 
pound  on  wool.  For  that  reason  it  was  favored  by  Hoff 
man  and  opposed  by  Bates.4  The  extreme  protectionists 

voted  with  the  opponents  of  the  bill  to  reeom- 
^,  but  the  motion  was  rejected.5    At  last, 


amendment        a|]  other  propositions  having  been  defeated,  the 
Mallary  amendment,  as  amended  by  that   of 

Sutherland,  was  adopted,  —  one  hundred  and  eighty-three 

to  seventeen. 

Heretofore  all  the  provisions  of  the  bill  were  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Northern  farmer  or  manufac 
turer.  On  the  14th  of  April  Haile,  of  Missis 

sippi,  proposed  and  advocated  vigorously  a  prohibitory  duty 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  2247,  2252. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  2260.  s  Ibid.,  pp.  2267,  2290. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  2284.                  *  Ibid.,  p.  2307. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828. 


on.  indigo  and  castor  oil.  The  latter  article  was  dropped, 
but  the  proposition  to  tax  imported  indigo  at  twenty-five 
cents  a  pound,  with  an  annual  increase  of  ten 

.         .        ,,  ~  Indigo. 

cents,  amounting  in  all  to  seventy-five  cents,  was 
favored  by  McDuffie  and  Livingston,  and  opposed  by  Ham 
ilton,  of  South  Carolina.1  Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
Burges,  of  Rhode  Island,  also  opposed  the  proposition. 
Drayton,  of  South  Carolina,  who  was  hostile  to  Drayton  and 
the  duty  on  general  grounds  of  opposition  to  stewart- 
all  protective  measures,  asked  Stewart  several  difficult  ques 
tions,  convicting  him  of  proclaiming  that  he  had  always 
voted  for  an  increase  of  the  tariff,  while  on  the  particular 
item  at  issue  he  urged  that  the  proposed  duty  would  be 
onerous  upon  the  manufacturer.  "  Is  the  inhabitant  of  the 
South  not  oppressed  by  the  enormous  tax  upon  woollens  to 
which  he  has  been  so  long  subjected?  Are  his  interests  to 
be  disregarded  when  they  conflict  with  those  of  the  East 
and  North  ?  Are  these  the  fruits  of  the  boasted  American 
system  ?" 2  Cambreleng  was  surprised  to  see  gentlemen 
who  favored  protection  in  opposition  to  the  amendment. 
Haile  urged  Southern  men  to  vote  for  the  duty  A  game  of 
on  indigo,  and  declared  that  the  way  the  tariff  snatch, 
question  was  managed  it  was  a  "mere  game  of  snatch."3 
After  further  consideration  the  amendment  was  adopted  by 
a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  three  to  ninety.4 

The  bill  was  now  placed  in  the  critical  condition  of  a  risk 
of  defeat  by  some  of  its  own   friends  voting   T     , 

»  ^  o     m    danger    of 

against  it  on  account  of  certain  features,  objec-  defeat  by  its 
tionable  to  their  constituents,  which  had  been 
incorporated  into  it.  A  movement  to  strike  out  or  to  reduce 
the  molasses  duty  drew  forth  a  bevy  of  curious  explanations. 
It  was  proclaimed  by  Southern  and  some  Northern  oppo 
nents  of  the  measure  that  they  would  vote  to  keep  the 
molasses  duty  in  to  influence  votes  against  the  bill  on  its 
final  passage.  A  South  Carolina  member  said  that  he 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  2322.  J  Ibid.,  p.  2325. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  2329.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2332. 


138          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

wished  that  the  poor  might  be  made  to  feel  its  oppressive 
operation,  that  a  stronger  interest  might  be  created  in  the 
A  southern  country  against  the  tariff  system.1  Another 
opinion.  gentleman  said  that  "  the  Southern  country 

could  furnish  molasses  enough  for  the  whole  country,"  and 
Livingston,  of  Louisiana,  wished  that  his  constituents  should 
have  some  of  the  advantages  of  the  bill,  if  any  were  to 
grow  out  of  it.2  Amendments  to  reduce  from  ten  to  seven 
and  a  half  cents  per  gallon  and  to  strike  out  the  duty  were 
lost.3  The  yeas  and  nays  on  the  previous  question  were 
The  previous  ordered  by  one  hundred  and  ten  to  ninety-one. 
question.  Among  the  "  nays"  were  such  extreme  protec 

tionists  as  "Bates,  of  Massachusetts,  Burges  and  Sprague,  of 
Rhode  Island,  Martindale,  of  New  York,  Stewart,  of  Penn 
sylvania,  and  Wright,  of  Ohio.  On  the  main  question  the 
yeas  were  one  hundred  and  nine,  the  nays  ninety-one.  On 
this  vote  the  Southern  members  and  the  straight  free-traders, 
like  Cambreleng,  were  recorded  u  nay."  Buchanan,  Hoff 
man,  Ingham,  Stevenson,  Sutherland,  and  Wright,  of  New 
York,  were  found  voting  yea  with  Mallary,  Burges,  Taylor, 
and  other  high  protectionists.  They  had  the  most  of  that 
which  they  desired,  if  there  was  a  measurable  disappointment 
for  the  latter  group.  Bates  and  Davis,  of  Massachusetts, 
voted  "  no."  The  dissatisfaction  of  some  of  the  extreme  pro- 
New  England  tectionists  of  the  manufacturing  districts,  espe 
cially  in  New  England,  was  profound.  Pearce, 
of  Rhode  Island,  announced  his  intention  to  vote  for  Ran 
dolph's  motion  for  indefinite  postponement.4  Debate  on  the 
passage  was  continued  with  great  earnestness  until  the  22d 
of  April.  The  argument  against  the  bill  was  chiefly  that 
by  prohibiting  wool  a  temporary  benefit  to  the  wool-growers 
would  result  in  serious  injury  to  the  manufacturers.  Mc- 
Dufiie  spoke  on  the  18th  of  April  of  the  silence  of  "  the 
peculiar  and  destined  victim,"  the  Southern  States,  on  the 
occasion,  and  examined  the  question  of  profits  of  woollen 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  2344. 

2  Sutherland,  Ibid.,  pp.  2335,  2346.  s  Ibid.,  p.  2347. 
•*  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  2348,  2356. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  139 

manufacturers,  the  price  of  labor  and  what  he  called  "  this 
system  of  sectional  combination."  He  attempted  inge 
niously  to  prove  that  woollen  manufactures  could  be  made 
in  Great  Britain  for  little  more  than  half  the  price  it  would 
cost  to  make  them  in  the  United  States  and  that  the  differ 
ence  grew  out  of  permanent  causes.1  He  contended,  against 
the  Harrisburg  convention,  that  a  given  quantity  of  wool 
could  be  worked  for  one-third  less  in  Great  Britain  than  in 
this  country.  The  duty  on  wool  manufactures  was  either 
a  benefit  or  a  burden :  if  the  former,  how  could  an  addi 
tional  bounty  be  imposed  at  the  community's  expense ;  and 
if  a  burden,  as  he  believed  it  was,  how  infamous  the  delu 
sion  practised  upon  the  farmers ! 2  McDufiie,  saying  that 
the  South  was  for  free  trade  because  of  its  posi 
tion,  and  not  on  sentimental  grounds,  declared  free  trade  be- 
he  would  not  undertake  to  say  that  that  section  cause  of  its  P°- 

.  sition. 

would  not  be  tempted  to  join  "  this  plundering 
expedition"  if  a  tariff  could  be  so  regulated  as  to  increase 
the  price  of  cotton.  He  contended  that  it  was  a  contest 
between  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  manufacturers  and 
farmers  against  all  the  other  manufacturers  and  farmers  in 
the  country,  and  against  the  whole  Southern  population. 
The  severance  of  the  Union  and  loss  of  liberty,  if  it  ever 
came,  would  be  ascribable  to  such  measures.  No  imposture 
was  equal  to  it.3  Barbour,  Alexander,  and  Hamilton,  all 
Southerners,  followed  in  brief  speeches.  The  constitu 
tional  argument,  waived  byMcDuffie  and  only  hinted  at  by 
Barbour,  was  entered  upon  fully  by  the  Virginian,  Alex 
ander.  Hamilton  said  that  there  was  a  state  of  feeling 
throughout  the  Southern  States  which  no  prudent  man 
would  treat  with  contempt  and  no  patriot  would  not  desire 
to  see  allayed.  Thompson,  of  Georgia,  and  Martin,  of 
South  Carolina,  maintained  the  devotion  of  the  South  to 
the  Union.4  But  for  the  occasion  the  parties  to  the  sectional 
struggle  were  changed.  Sharp  tilts  between  the  Eastern 


1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  2382,  2384.     2  Ibid.,  p.  2393. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  2405.  *  Ibid,,  pp.  2435,  2451,  2470. 


140         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

and  Western  speakers  occurred.1  The  previous  question 
on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  taken  on  the  22d  of  April, 

and  resulted  in  a  vote  of  ayes  one  hundred  and 
passage  in  the  twenty-two  to  noes  sixty-three.  The  bill  passed 

the  House  by  one  hundred  and  five  to  ninety- 
four.  The  yeas  were  S.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Baldwin, 
Barber,  Barlow,  Barnard,  Beecher,  Belden,  Blake,  Brown, 
Buchanan,  Buck,  Buckner,  Bunner,  Burges,  Chase,  Chilton, 
J.  C.  Clark,  J.  Clark,  Condict,  Coulter,  Creighton,  Crownin- 
shield,  Daniel,  John  Davenport,  De  Graff,  Dickinson,  Dun 
can,  Dwight,  Earll,  Findlay,  Forward,  Fry,  Garnsey, 
Garrow,  Green,  Harvey,  Healy,  Hobbie,  Hoffman,  Hunt, 
Jennings,  Johns,  Keese,  King,  Lawrence,  Lecompte,  Leifler, 
Letcher,  Little,  Lyon,  Magee,  Mallary,  Markell,  Martin- 
dale,  Marvin,  Maxwell,  McHatton,  S.  McKean,  W.  McKean, 
Merwin,  Metcalfe,  Miller,  Miner,  J.  Mitchell,  Thomas  P. 
Moore,  Orr,  Phelps,  Pierson,  Ramsey,  Russell,  Sergeant, 
Sloane,  Smith,  Stanberry,  Stevenson,  Sterigere,  Stewart, 
Storrs,  Stowcr,  Strong,  Swan,  Swift,  Sutherland,  Taylor,  H. 
Thompson,  Tracy,  E.  Tucker,  Vance,  Van  Horn,  Van  Rens- 
selaer,  Vinton,  Wales,  Whipple,  Whittlesey,  Wickliffe,  Wil 
son,  J.  J.  Wood,  S.  Wood,  J.  Woods,  Woodcock,  Wolf, 
S.  Wright,  J.  C.  Wright,  Yancey.  The  negative  vote  was 
as  follows :  Alexander,  Robert  Allen,  S.  C.  Allen,  Alston, 
J.  Anderson,  Archer,  Bailey,  P.  P.  Barbour,  Barker,  Bar- 
ringer,  Bartlett,  E.  Bates,  I.  C.  Bates,  Bell,  Blair,  Brent, 
Bryan,  Butman,  Cambreleng,  Carson,  Carter,  Claiborne, 
Conner,  Crockett,  Culpeper,  Thomas  Davenport,  J.  Davis, 
W.  R.  Davis,  Desha,  Dorsey,  Drayton,  Everett,  Floyd, 
Fort,  Gale,  Gilmer,  Gorham,  Gurley,  Haile,  Hallock,  Hall, 
Hamilton,  Haynes,  Hodges,  Holmes,  Ingersoll,  Isacks,  John 
son,  Kerr,  Lea,  Livingston,  Locke,  Long,  Lumpkin,  Mara- 
ble,  Martin,  McCoy,  McDuffie,  Mclntire,  McKee,  Mercer, 
J.  C.  Mitchell,  Gabriel  Moore,  Newton,  Nuckolls,  Oakley, 
O'Brien,  Owen,  Pearce,  Plant,  Polk,  Randolph,  Reed,  Rich 
ardson,  Ripley,  Rives,  Roane,  Sawyer,  A.  H.  Shepperd,  A. 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  2452,  2453. 


THE    TARIFF— 1820-1828.  141 

Smyth,  Sprague,  Taliaferro,  W.  Thompson,  Trezvant,  S. 
Tucker,  Turner,  Varnum,  Verplanck,  Ward,  Washington, 
Weems,  Wilde,  Williams,  Wingate.1 

Among  the  nays  were  those  members  of  the  Massachu 
setts  delegation  who  had  made  such  strenuous  opposition 
to  the  prominent  feature  of  the  bill,  the  duty  on  wool. 

The  debate  began  in  the  Senate  May  5.     Amendments 
proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Manufactures    May5 
on  the  iron  and  wool  schedules  were  rejected.    Debate  m  the 
Specific  duties  were  stricken  out  in  section  2, 
and  a  minimum  was  substituted,  which  changed  the  duty 
from  forty  to  fifty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.2     The  casting  vote 
of  the  chair  rejected  the  amendment,  including  woollen 
blankets  at  forty  per  cent,  ad  valorem?    Fifty  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  ready-made  clothing  was  agreed  to. 

In  advocating  the  duty  on  molasses  as  an  encouragement 
to  Western  distillers,  Benton  said  that  whiskey  ^nton  on  the 
was  "  the  healthiest  liquor  that  was  drank,  as  heaithfuinessof 
men  were  known  who  had  been  drunk  upon  it 
for  forty  or  fifty  years,  whilst  rum  finished  its  victim  in 
eight  or  ten  years."  4  The  House  had  refused  to  adopt 
higher  increased  duties  than  fifty  per  cent,  on  lead  and  shot, 
products  of  Missouri.  Benton  stated  that  he  and  Kane, 
of  Illinois,  had  agreed  to  present  an  amendment  in  the 
Senate  for  an  increase  of  one  hundred  per  cent.  He  ad 
mitted  that  it  might  be  thought  to  be  high,  but  added  that 
if  it  was  rejected  there  was  nothing  in  the  bill  which  could 
induce  him  to  vote  for  it.5  The  lead  duty  as 
proposed  was  adopted.6  The  bill  as  amended 
was  reported  to  the  Senate  on  the  second  day,  and  the  first 
five  amendments  on  woollen  cloths  and  those  on  carpeting, 
ready-made  clothing,  and  lead  were  adopted.7 

Many  of  the  arguments  were  the  same  as  those  that  had 
been  used  in  the  House  and  need  not  be  repeated.  As  in 

1  Register  of  Debates,  First  Session,  Twentieth  Congress,   p.  2471 ; 
House  Journal,  First  Session,  Twentieth  Congress,  p.  607. 

2  Ibid. ,  p.  725.      3  Ibid. ,  p.  726.  See  also  734,  where  the  vote  is  repealed. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  726.       6  Ibid.,  p.  729.  6  Ibid.,  p.  732.  T  Ibidem. 


142          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

1824,  it  was  alleged  and  denied  that  the  tariff  was  evaded  by 
importers.  Parris,  of  Maine,  opposed  the  bill  strongly  be- 
various  argu-  cause  it  would  increase  the  revenue  unneces- 
ments.  sarily,  taking  from  the  people  what  the  public 

service  did  not  demand.  Dickerson  retorted,  "  How  had 
Maine  gained  her  prosperity  but  by  discriminations  in  favor 
of  American  tonnage  and  protection  of  the  fisheries  ?" l 
Smith,  of  Maryland,  and  Parris,  in  reply,  claimed  that 
Maine's  prosperity  was  due  to  other  causes.  The  operation 
of  the  bounty  was  not  on  the  fisheries,  but  on  the  consump 
tion  of  salt.2  The  low-tariff  men  also  argued  that  the  fall 
in  the  price  of  iron  was  not  due  to  moderation  in  the 
domestic  manufacturer,  but  to  railroads  in  England  and  to 
water  instead  of  land  carriage  in  the  Scandinavian  states.3 
Hayne  Hay ne  said  that  Dickerson,  in  answer  to  Parris's 

southern  inter-  complaints  with  respect  to  the  oppressive  oper 
ation  of  the  bill  on  New  England  shipping  had 
condoled  with  him  by  saying  that  they  had  only  to  transfer 
the  tax  to  those  in  whose  service  the  New  England  shipping 
was  employed, — in  other  words,  don't  mind  the  tax,  put  it 
on  the  South.  He  asserted  that  Southern  interests  had  been 
shamefully  sacrificed  from  beginning  to  end.4 

After  many  allusions  had  been  made  on  both  sides  to  New 
England's  change  of  policy,  Webster  explained 
^iains6r  New  ^e  reasons  to  be  assigned  for  it.  It  was  laid 
England's  to  her  charge  in  1824,  he  said,  that,  having 
change  <  •  estat)Hshecl  her  manufactures  herself,  she  wished 
that  others  should  not  have  the  power  of  rival 
ling  her,  and  therefore  opposed  all  legislative  encourage 
ment.  Now,  he  continued,  the  imputation  is  of  precisely 
an  opposite  character.  Both  charges,  he  insisted,  were 
without  foundation.  After  the  solemn  promulgation  of  the 
policy  of  the  government,  which  he  claimed  was  a  final 
declaration,  was  New  England  to  deny  herself  the  use  of  her 
natural  and  acquired  advantages?  Was  she  to  content  her- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  744.  a  Ibid.,  p.  745. 

$  Ibidem.  *  Ibid.,  p.  746. 


THE    TARIFF — 1820-1828,  143 

self  with  useless  regrets, — to  resist  what  she  could  no  longer 
prevent  ?  Proceeding,  he  argued,  that  the  passage  of  the 
tariff  act  of  1824  and  of  an  act  by  the  English  Parliament, 
shortly  afterwards,  reducing  the  duty  twenty-six  per  cent,  on 
imported  wool  gave  the  British  manufacturer  great  advan 
tage,  and  afforded  ground  for  another  measure,  advocacy  of 
which  was  reinforced  by  consideration  of  hopes  excited, 
enterprises  undertaken,  and  capital  invested  in  consequence 
of  the  tariff  act  of  1824.1  Webster  said  that  the  object  in 
taxing  molasses  was  to  make  New  England  feel  the  smart 
of  the  bill  and  deter  her  from  the  protection  of  her  exten 
sive  woollen  factories.  It  was  abominable.  He  grew  loftily 
indignant,  and  declared  that  it  was  impossible  to  intimidate 
New  England.  He  lectured  the  North  Carolina  Senators, 
whom,  he  said,  by  their  votes  laid  a  burden  on  their  con 
stituents,  large  importers  and  consumers  of  the  article.2 
The  bill  could  not  be  what  it  had  been  termed,  "  a  bill  of 
abominations,"  because  its  operation  was  merely  to  create  a 
market  for  the  wool-grower. 

Webster,  opposing  the  increased  duty  proposed  on  hemp, 
offered  a  substitute,  the  effect  of  which  was  that  the  Navy 
Department  should  be  directed  to  purchase  for  the  use  of 
the  navy  of  the  United  States  American  water-rotted 
hemp,  when  it  could  be  procured  of  a  suitable  quality,  and 
at  a  price  not  exceeding  by  more  than  twenty  per  cent,  the 
price  of  the  imported  article.  Upon  this  Johnson,  of  Ken 
tucky,  said  that  New  England  was  ready  to  desert  the  West. 
The  debate  was  participated  in  by  Webster,  Benton,  Smith, 
of  Maryland,  Dickerson,  Tazewell,  and  Rowan.  On  divi 
sion  of  Webster's  proposition  only  ten  Senators — all  from 
New  England — voted  to  strike  out  the  hemp  duty,  while 
thirty-six  votes  were  recorded  against  striking  out.3 

Benton  proposed  a  duty  of  twenty -five  cents  a  pound  per 
year  on  indigo  "  in  order  to  revive  an  ancient  industry  of 
the  South."  It  was  a  progressive  duty,  to  stop  at  one  dollar 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  753.  3  Ibid.,  p.  756. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  765.  The  ayes  were  Chandler,  Foot,  Knight,  Parris,  Bobbins, 
Seymour,  Silsbee,  Webster,  Willey,  and  Woodbury. 


144          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

per  pound.  The  act  of  1816  had  reduced  the  duty  from 
twenty-five  to  fifteen  cents.  Macon,  Smith,  of  Maryland, 
Benton,  and  Hayne  spoke  for  the  amendment,  and  Dicker- 
son,  Knight,  and  Woodbury  opposed  it.  Dickerson  said, 
u  We  struggle  against  an  unnecessary  imposition,  one  which 
will  not  aid  the  agriculturist  and  yet  will  injure  the  manu 
facturer."  Benton  accused  Dickerson  of  having  changed 
front  on  this  question  of  protecting  products.  The  latter's 
proposition  limiting  the  ultimate  duty  to  fifty  cents  was 
adopted,  and  another  amendment  provided  that  the  increase 
should  be  ten  cents  for  the  first  year  and  five  cents  for  each 
succeeding  year.  Benton  averred  that  this  was  an  insult  to 
the  South.  That  section  was  to  be  allowed  twenty  per  cent, 
on  the  article  for  five  years,  while  the  cloths  of  New  England 
were  placed  at  seventy  per  cent,  instanter.1  Motions  to 
increase  cordage  duty  five  cents  and  for  a  progressive  duty 
on  wool  in  the  skin,  making  the  latter  prohibitory  in  four 
years,  were  lost.2  Benton,  the  mover,  also  proposed  a  duty 
of  ten  per  cent,  per  annum  on  unmanufactured  wool  until 
it  should  arrive  at  fifty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.,  and  five  per 
cent,  afterwards  up  to  seventy  per  cent.  It  was  rejected,  as 
was  also  his  motion  to  increase  the  proposed  amount  on 
molasses  from  ten  cents  to  sixteen.3  He  debated  this  prop 
osition  with  remarkable  ability.  Accepting  Webster's 
statement  that  the  article  was  used  principally  in  New  Eng 
land  and  as  a  substitute  for  sugar,  he  said,  "  While  the 
statesmen  of  1790  estimated  that  molasses  should  be  taxed 
in  the  rate  of  eight  cents  per  gallon  for  one  pound  of  sugar, 
the  duty  now  stood  three  cents  on  brown  sugar  and  only 
five  cents  per  gallon  on  molasses.  Thus  New  England  got 
its  sugar  at  a  disproportionately  low  rate  compared  with  the 
rest  of  the  union,  which  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of 
transportation  could  not  use  sugar."4  Benton  was  very 
active  in  his  efforts  against  this  bill,  which  were  mostly 
unsuccessful.  His  amendments  to  strike  out  the  duty  on 

1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  775.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  775,  776. 

8  The  existing  rate  was  only  five  cents  per  gallon. 
4  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  777. 


THE   TARIFF— 1820-1828.  145" 

woollen  blankets,  to  tax  furs  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent.,  to  lay  a  duty  of  ten  dollars  per  ton  on  hemp  until 
the  duty  amounted  to  ninety  dollars  were  all  rejected.  So 
also  was  the  proposition  of  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  to 
strike  out  the  cotton  bagging  duty,  based  chiefly  on  the  fall 
in  the  price  of  cotton,  which  was  felt  severely  by  the  plan 
ters.1  The  Senate  changed  the  date  on  which  the  bill  was 
to  go  into  operation  from  June  30  to  September  1.  By  a 
vote  of  twenty-six  to  twenty-one  it  was  ordered  to  its  third 
reading.  The  vote  was  very  nearly  sectional ;  but  Chandler, 
Parris,  Bobbins,  Silsbee,  and  Woodbury,  New  Englanders, 
voted  with  the  Southern  Senators  in  the  negative.2  On  the 
question  of  passage  Hayne  spoke  at  length  in  opposition. 
He  protested  solemnly  against  it  as  a  partial,  Final  passage  of 
unjust,  and  unconstitutional  measure,  and  the  bil1  of  1828> 
moved  an  indefinite  postponement.  Although  on  this  vote 
some  of  the  Northern  opponents  of  the  bill  abandoned 
Hayne,  the  vote  remained  as  to  figures  as  before, — twenty- 
six  to  twenty-one.3 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  784. 

2  Two  Southern  Senators  then  classed  as  Western  voted  nay.     These 
were  Johnston,  of  Louisiana,  and  White,  of  Tennessee.     Register  of 
Debates,  p.  785. 

3  Parris,  Robbins,  Silsbee,  and  Woodbury  voted  in  the  negative.    The 
act  was  approved  May  19.     Register  of  Debates,  p.  786. 


10 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    DEBATE    OF    1830    AND    OTHER    EVENTS. 

THE  tariff  of  1824  stimulated  manufacturing  enterprises, 
tea'd-mining  and  manufactures  began  in  Missouri  and  iron- 
mining  in  Virginia.      Four  years  later  there 

Eetrospect.  &        .          .  * 

were  cotton  factories  in  .North  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  Indeed,  throughout  the  Northern  and  in  parts 
of  the  Western  and  Southern  States  there  was  a  great 
growth  of  manufactures.1 

The  increase  of  manufacturing  was  accompanied  by  a 
Revival  of  pro-  strong  revival  of  the  protection  spirit  which 
tectionism.  entered  parties  and  controlled  the  action  of 
politicians.  The  administration  of  Mr.  Adams  was  distinc 
tively  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  protection.  The  Secretary 
of  State  was  the  leader  of  the  protectionists.  On  the  other 
hand,  General  Jackson,  who  in  both  of  his  terms  in  the 
Senate  had  co-operated  with  the  protectionists  in  vote  and 
speech,  became  the  leader  as  well  of  the  anti-protectionists 
as  of  the  anti-administrationists.2  But  the  opposition  to  the 
great  economic  feature  of  the  administration  was  not  simply 
political.  The  commercial  bodies  in  the  large  cities,  as  well 

as  the  planters  and  farmers  in  the  South  and 


opposition 

south  Carolina    Southwest,  made  strong  protests.      Organized 

political  movements  began  in  South  Carolina 
and  Virginia  about  the  time  of  the  Harrisburg  convention, 
and  the  arrangement  of  the  programme  for  further  protec 
tion.  Resolutions  were  passed  by  the  legislature  of  the 

1  Mies' s  Register,  August  12,  October  21,  1826  ;  August  9,  1828.  In  that 
latter  year  three  cotton  factories  were  in  existence  in  North  Carolina,  and 
one  was  started  in  Georgia. 

3  But  Jackson,  as  we  shall  see,  did  not  go  to  the  extreme. 
146 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          147 

latter  State,  and  adopted  by  the  public  meetings  held  in  the 
former,  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1827.  Mr.  Madi 
son  opposed  the  anti-tariff  declaration  of  Virginia,  but  he 
and  Mr.  Monroe  refused  to  permit  the  use  of  their  names 
on  the  Adams  or  anti-Jackson  electoral  ticket.1  The 
tariff'  convention  of  July  30,  1827,  at  Harris-  Effect  of  the 
burg  did  not  consolidate  the  protectionist  Harrisburgcou- 
strength,  for  Buchanan  and  many  others  of 
less  prominence  changed  position  in  opposition  to  the 
views  there  advanced.  The  proposed  duty  on  wool  and 
woollen  goods  was  resisted  by  riot  only  the  commercial 
centres,  but  by  a  class  of  the  manufacturers,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  previous  chapter  on  the  tariff  debates.  The  bill 
of  1828  fell  short  of  the  expectations  of  many  of  the  bin  of 
of  its  friends,  wool-growers  and  manufacturers.  1828- 
But  flags  on  some  of  the  vessels  in  Charleston  harbor  were 
placed  at  half  mast,  many  meetings  were  held  in  the  State 
of  South  Carolina  and  some  elsewhere,  and  Southern  news 
papers  began  an  agitation  against  the  tariff.  Even  in  the 
earliest  meetings  disunion  was  talked  of  by  some  Non.intercourge 
of  the  South  Carolina  speakers,  and  in  several  and  disunion, 
of  them  non-intercourse  resolutions  were 
adopted.  "Writers  in  the  leading  journal  of  South  Carolina, 
the  Charleston  Mercury,  advocated  separation  and  war  as 
the  last  resort,  and  such  was  also  the  language  of  some  of 
the  toasts  at  public  dinners  and  other  gatherings  of  the 
people.  There  was  a  moderate  party  in  favor  of  union,  but 
opposed  as  much  as  the  other  to  the  tariff  and  TheUnionparty 
the  protective  principle.  And  at  first  the  leaders  opposed  to  the 
of  the  extreme  State-rights  party  urged  moder 
ation.  One  of  the  toasts  at  the  Fort  Moultrie  celebration, 
June  28,  1828,  was,  "  The  advocates  of  disunion.  Palsied 
be  the  arm  and  withered  the  heart  of  him  who  would  attempt 
to  destroy  this  fair  fabric  of  liberty."2 

1  See  Niles's  Register,  October  10,  1827,  for  the  former's  letter  to  the 
Lynchburg  Virginian. 

2  Charleston  Courier,  July  9,  quoted  by  Niks'  s  Register,  July  26,  1828  ; 
Calhoun's  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  United  States  Telegraph. 


148          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

In  Georgia  the  excitement,  although  not  so  great  as  in 
South  Carolina,  was  considerable,  and  although  she  did  not 
go  so  far  or  so  fast,  one  of  her  grand  juries  u  pre 
sented"  the  tariff.    But  they  declared,  "  We  will 
not  suffer  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  to  enter  into  the  dis 
cussion  even  as  a  dernier  ressort" l    On  the  other  side  of  the 
line,  in  North  Carolina,  there  was  serious  consideration  of 
propositions  for  new  crops  to  take  the  place  of  cotton, 
which  had  become  unprofitable.2    The  South,  however,  was 
far  from  unanimous.     The  protective  party  was  strong  in 
Virginia,  and  here  and  there  through  all  of  the  Southern 
States  were  newspapers  advocating  their  principles.     Some 
of  these  papers  made  bold  claims  that  various  articles  pro 
tected  by  the  tariff  of  1824  had  been  reduced  in  price  in 
consequence.3     The  Senate  of  North  Carolina 

North  Carolina. 

adopted  resolutions  in  December,  1828,  in  favor 
of  protection.4  Governor  Iredell,  of  that  State,  suggested 
"  a  mild  and  friendly  remonstrance"  against  the  tariff,  and 
added  the  remark  that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  not  to 
be  thought  of.  The  message  of  Governor  Johnson,  of  Loui 
siana,  deprecated  disunion,  and  went  to  the  extent 

Louisiana. 

of  declaring  that  "  all  attempts  at  disunion  or 
consolidation"  would  be  "  met  by  the  powers  and,  if  neces 
sary,  by  the  arms  of  an  indignant  public."  On  the  con 
trary,  Governor  Giles,  of  Virginia,  spoke  of  "  these  compli 
cated  usurpations,"  having  reference  to  tariff  and  internal 
improvement  legislation.  In  his  message  to  the  Alabama 

Legislature,  Governor  Murphy  observed  that  the 

only  remedy  for  present  distress  was  to  begin 
manufacturing  in  the  South.  He  opposed  the  dissolution 

of  the  Union.    Governor  Metcalfe,  of  Kentucky, 

Kentucky.  '  J ' 

"  deplored  the  disaffection  to  the  government 
of  the  Union  which  had  recently  manifested  itself  among 
some  of  the  brethren  of  the  South."  The  constitutional 

1  Nttes's  Register,  September  6,  20,  1828. 

2  Raleigh  Register,  quoted  by  Niks' s  Register,  September  13,  1828. 
8  Niles's  Register,  and  quotations,  September  20, 1828. 

*  Raleigh  Register,  December  12,  same  year. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          149 

power  to  protect  industry  was  maintained  in  Governor 
Kent's  message  to  the  Maryland  Legislature,  the  very  last  of 
the  year.1 

J  Maryland. 

The  focus  of  the  excitement  over  the  tarin 
was  in  South  Carolina.  McDuffie  addressed  four  thousand 
persons  at  Abbeville  on  the  25th  of  September.  Thefocusof  the 
The  resolutions  adopted  led  off  with  a  declara-  excitement  m 
tion  of  love  for  the  Union,  hut  of  abhorrence 
to  the  tariff.  They  urged  relief  only  through  "  constitutional 
measures."  Having  been  accused  by  a  writer  in  a  local  news 
paper  of  a  number  of  disunion  projects  and  arrangements  in 
common  with  other  members  of  the  South  Carolina  delega 
tion  in  the  Congress,  Senator  Robert  Y.  Hayne  replied, under 
date  of  October  24,  1828,  denying  most  unequivocally  that 
there  was  ever  held  at  his  residence  in  Washington  or  any 
where  else,  to  his  knowledge,  any  meeting  on  the  subject  of 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  or  that  any  such  question  was 
ever  proposed  or  decided  at  any  meeting  at  The meetings at 
which  he  was  present  or  had  knowledge.  His  Hayne's  resi- 
very  circumstantial  statement  denied  positively 
that  any  proposition  was  ever  submitted  to  the  South  Carolina 
delegation  to  the  effect  that  the  members  should  immediately 
abandon  their  seats,  return  home,  and  thereby  end  all  further 
political  connection  with  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  His  last  emphatic  denial  was  that  any  determina 
tion  was  ever  made  that  the  members  on  their  return  should 
visit  their  constituents  and  inculcate  among  them  such  doc 
trines  and  principles  as  should  induce  them  to  agree  to  and 
advocate  a  separation  of  the  States,  or  that  any  proposition 
to  that  effect  was  ever  submitted  by  any  member  of  the- 
delegation.  He  said  that  a  meeting  was  held  at  the  time  at 
his  house,  but  that  its  object  was  to  concert  what  action 
should  be  taken  on  a  proposition  made  by  a  Southern  mem 
ber,  not  from  South  Carolina,  to  protest  against  the  tariff 
bill  to  Congress.  Mr.  Hayne,  whose  high  character  gives 
authority  for  a  statement  substantiated  by  his  colleagues, 

1  Niks' s  Register,  December  20,  1828  ;  January  3,  1829. 


150         A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

adds  that  the  members  of  the  delegation  resolved  to  allay 
whatever  excitement  might  exist  among  their  constituents. 
He  declares  that  he  and  his  colleagues  have  been  actuated 
by  a  desire  "  not  to  destroy  but  to  restore  the  Constitution." l 
Thomas  R.  Mitchell,  an  anti-nullification  member  from  the 
State,  in  the  same  newspaper  contradicted  Hayne's  state 
ments,  and  claimed  that  only  by  the  refusal  of  Colonel 
Dray  ton  was  the  adoption  of  the  alleged  propositions 
defeated,  Judge  Smith,  the  other  Senator,  not  having  been 
present,  and  he  (Mitchell)  having  also  opposed  the  scheme. 
Drayton,  he  said,  opposed  the  proposition  to  withdraw  from 
Congress.  Georgia  alone  of  the  States  agreed  to  unite  with 
them  in  a  protest.  But  Mitchell  in  the  same  communication 
proclaimed  that  he  had  "  never  suspected  either  the  princi 
ples  or  course"  of  the  Calhoun  party,  and  was  not  in  their 
confidence.2  Hayne's  statements  were  corroborated  in  all 
essential  points  by  Representatives  Martin,  Drayton,  Hamil 
ton,  and  Carter.  The  conference,  or  rather  conferences,  for 
there  were  two  meetings  at  Hayne's  residence,  were  for  the 
purpose  of  seeing  what  should  be  done  personally  by  the 
•delegation,  and  as  to  what  steps  might  be  rendered  neces 
sary  at  a  later  time,  but  not  distinctly  for  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  While  there  were  no  propositions  looking  to  dis 
union,  there  was  some  private  conversation  on  the  effects  of 
a  dissolution  if  it  were  regarded  as  necessary.  On  this  topic 
Hayne  did  not  utter  a  word.  Hamilton  denied  the  power 
of  coercion.3  The  latter  admitted  in  the  card  which  he 
printed  that  they  "  all  appeared  to  be  under  a  very  high 
degree  of  excitement,"  and  that  he  announced  his  "  deter 
mination  to  withdraw,"  but  was  induced  by  Hayne,  Dray 
ton,  McDuifie,  and  Martin  to  reconsider.  The  resources  of 
the  State  and  her  power  of  resistance  were  mentioned  in 
the  -course  of  the  conferences.4  Mitchell  seemed  to  enter 

1  Niles's  Register,  November  15. 

2  Senator  Hayne  replied  sharply  to  Mitchell  in  the  Charleston  Patriot. 
The  latter  seems  to  have  had  some  personal  grudge  against  Calhoun. 
His  rejoinder  to  Hayne  is  very  weak.     Niles's  Register,  December  6. 

3  This  is  Dray  ton's  statement.  *  Hamilton's  statement. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1SSO  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.         151 

with  ardor  into  the  arrangements  that  were  there  discussed. 
It  would  appear  upon  a  full  review  that  no  formal  proposi 
tion  for  disunion  was  debated  or  decided  upon;  but  the 
whole  matter  of  the  tariff  and  the  State's  duty  in  the  prem 
ises  was  considered. 1 

The  tone  of  the  aggressive  party  grew  bolder  towards 
the  end  of  the  year.  Hamilton,  in  a  speech  at 

Walterborough,  said  that  nullification  was  the    ^creased  bold 
ness  of  the  ag- 

rightful  remedy.  But  he  concluded  by  giving  gressive  party 
"  the  Constitution"  as  his  toast.  It  was  charged  ^nih  Caro~ 
and  denied  that  secret  meetings  in  the  interest 
of  disunion  were  held  in  Charleston,  and  the  anti-nullifica 
tion  press  asserted  that  in  Richmond  the  subject  of  a  disso 
lution  of  the  Union  was  discussed  in  private  circles.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  a  strong  nullification  feeling  pervaded 
the  Carolinas,  Virginia,  and  Georgia.2 

One  feature  of  the  times  was  the  charge  by  the  low-tariff 
papers,  North  as  well  as  South,  that  the  Adams  administra 
tion  fanned  the  excitement  in  South  Carolina  in  order  to 
bolster  a  sinking  administration  and  party.3 

The  South  Carolina  Legislature  met  in  December.4     The 
resolutions  offered  on  the  crisis  were  many  and 

J  December. 

variant.  Preston  s  declared  that  the  tariff  was  south  Carolina 
unconstitutional  and  was  to  be  met  by  nullifica-  Le^lslature- 
tion  and  resistance ;  Legare's,  that  it  was  unjust  and  oppres 
sive,  but  that  no  convention  ought  to  be  called  and  no  acts 
of  nullification  framed ;  Smith's,  that  the  act  was  unconsti 
tutional,  but  the  resolution  deplored  extreme  measures,  and 
urged  the  governor  to  call  the  legislature  in  special  session. 

1  All  of  these  cards  or  statements  were  reprinted  in  Niles's  Register,  No 
vember  22,  1828.    The  National  Intelligencer  accepted  Hayne's  disclaimer 
that  there  was  a  disunion  meeting,  but  appeared  to  think  that  Mitchell's 
account  was  otherwise  correct,  November  6,  11. 

2  The  National  Intelligencer  of  August  30  accepts  the  denial  of  the 
Charleston  Mercury  that  such  meetings  were  ever  held  in  that  city. 
The  Union  paper  at  Charleston,  the  Gazette,  said  that  secret  conferences 
were  held,  but  did  not  allege  disunion  as  their  object. 

s  Richmond  Enquirer,  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  for  June,  1828. 
*  Governor  Taylor  had  refused  to  call  a  special  session  in  July. 


152          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

A  proposition  in  the  nature  of  a  compromise  was  offered 
by  Gregg,  and  adopted.     It  was  in  part  a  dignified  and 
temperate  protest  addressed  to  the  United  States 
Adopted!    Senate,  and  also  in  part  a  request  for  co-opera- 


est  tion  by  the  "  sister  States-"     The  a^ion  of  the 

Georgia  Legislature  was  not  so  moderate.1 
The  excitement  in  South  Carolina  steadily  increased  dur 

ing  1829.  "  The  signs  of  the  times  are  portentous,"  was 
the  expression  of  a  New  York  paper  in  sympa 
thy  with  the  anti-tariff  agitation.2  A  Charles 

ton  newspaper  had  made  the  suggestion  that  a  convention 

^      ..  of  all  the  States  for  the  purpose  of  re  vising  the 

Proposition   for  f  r      r 

a  convention  of  Constitution  should  he  held,  and  it  was  ap- 
aii  the  states.  prove(j  kv  foQ  ;^ew  York  Enquirer  and  Evening 

Post,  the  Albany  Argus,  and  the  Richmond  Enquirer.  The 
Legislative  Committee  in  Virginia  reported  elaborately  upon 
the  resolutions  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  concern 
ing  the  tariff  and  the  powers  of  the  general  government. 
The  first  resolution  adopted  by  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
declared  the  right  of  the  State  to  construe  mooted  powers  ; 
the  second,  that  this  right  was  to  be  exercised  as  Virginia 
had  ever  done,  with  just  respect  and  forbearance  for  the 
rights  of  other  States  ;  the  third  resolution  condemned  the 
tariff  of  1828  as  unauthorized  by  the  Constitution,  impoli 
tic,  and  oppressive,  and  called  for  its  repeal. 

Other  political  events  of  that  year  were  the  inauguration 

of  President  Jackson's   administration,  many 

tion.  1ptopoBed    removals  from  office,  and  some  criminal  trials 

acquisition   of    of  office-holders  under  the  former  President  ;  a 

Texas.  ... 

discussion  in  the  newspapers  over  the  proposed 
acquisition  of  Texas,  a  considerable  settlement  of  people 
from  the  United  States  having  been  formed  in  Austin  ;  the 
Virginia  Constitutional  Convention,  where  the  question  of 
slavery  was  debated  and  the  possibility  of  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union  was  occasionally  alluded  to. 

1  Both  protests  were  printed  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  December  30, 
1828. 

2  New  York  Evening  Post,  January  6,  1829. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          153 

In  the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention  the  subject  of 
slavery  was  discussed  in  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  rep 
resentation  in  the  legislature.  The  body  was  TheVirginia 
organized  on  the  5th  of  October.  Mr.  Madison  constitutional 
having  declined  the  honor,  Mr.  Monroe  was 
chosen  president  nem.  con.,  and  was  conducted  to  his  seat 
by  Messrs.  Madison  and  Marshall.1  Of  ninety  members 
elected  all  except  six  were  present  on  the  first  day.  The 
convention  proceeded  daily  with  its  task  of  forming  a  new 
constitution  for  the  State.  It  was  a  body  of  men,  most  of 
whom  were  eminent  for  services  to  the  State  and  nation,  of 
great  dignity,  character,  and  intelligence,  and  the  proceed 
ings  throughout  the  long  session  were  notable  for  their  order 
and  harmony.2  Of  the  committee  of  twenty- four  appointed 
on  the  7th  of  October,  nearly  every  member  was  an  eminent 
man.  Among  these  members  were  Madison,  Marshall, 
Kandolph,  Giles,  Roane,  Tazewell,  and  John  Y.  Mason. 

The  principal  difficulty  of  the  convention  was  the  equali 
zation  of  burdens  on  slave  property  and  its  connection 
with  representation.3  The  report  of  the  Legis-  glave  property 
lative  Committee  was  made  on  the  24th  of  and  representa- 
October.  Propositions  were  offered  for  free 
white  suffrage  and  for  free  suffrage  for  those  twenty-three 
years  old.  General  debate  opened  two  days  later.  The 
speeches  of  Cooke  and  Green,  on  the  27th  of  October,  in 
dicate  fairly  the  temper  and  ability  of  the  discussion.  The 
former  gentleman  advocated  the  basis  of  an  exclusive  white 
representation,  and  insisted  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 

1  Monroe  was  elected  on  motion  of  Madison.    The  illness  of  Mr.  Mon 
roe  caused  his  resignation  on  the  12th  of  December,  both  of  the  presi 
dency  and  of  membership.    To  the  former  Philip  P.  Barbour  was  chosen 
unanimously. 

2  "  We  have  never  seen  a  deliberative  body  whose  proceedings  have 
been  characterized  by  so  much  dignity  and  order, — none  which  is  more 
calculated  to  impress  every  spectator  with  respect  and  admiration." — 
Editorial  in  Richmond  Enquirer,  October  17. 

3  Doddridge  showed,  on  the  21st  of  October,  that  the  numbers  charged 
with  the  land  tax  were  about  92,000 ;  with  property  tax,  95,000.     The 
femmes  soles  were  seventeen  per  cent.    These  and  minors  were  to  other 
residents  as  9  to  1. 


154         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  principles  of  Jefferson,  which  he  and  his  compeers 
could  not  carry  out,  but  which  could  at  last  be  rendered 
October 26,  effective.  His  argument  was  from  the  natural 
General  debate,  justice  to  the  civic  policy.  Green  contended 
that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  such  a  basis  if  the  ma 
jority  had  an  interest  in  always  doing  what  was  right.  But 
the  danger  was  in  the  steady  increase  of  the  non-property- 
holding  classes.  At  a  later  day  it  was  said  that  the  propo 
sition  for  a  white  representation  was  as  old  as  1790.  Among 
the  speakers  were  Messrs.  Upshur  and  Doddridge,  the  latter 
for  and  the  former  against  exclusive  white  representation. 
P.  P.  Barbour  seemed  to  demonstrate  that  if 

October  29.  -T»MI  -r*«  i 

the  argument  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  and  the 
law  of  nature  were  correct,  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
would  follow  as  a  necessary  consequence.  With  character 
istic  severity  of  logic,  he  asked,  "  Is  it  not  a  solecism  to  say 
that  rights  which  have  their  bearing  only  as  a  consequence 
of  government  are  to  be  controlled  by  principles  depending 
on  a  state  of  things  antecedent  to  government?"  Mr. 
Monroe  deplored  divisions  on  the  subject  of  representation, 
and  favored  a  white  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  and  a 
mixed  basis  for  the  Senate.  On  the  3d  of  No 
vember  Naylor  lamented  the  evil  of  slavery, 
but  declared  that  he  was  opposed  to  immediate  emancipa 
tion.  Leigh  said,  a  few  days  later,  that  slave-owners  de 
manded  the  same  security  for  their  property  that  the  South 
did  of  the  North  in  the  Constitution.  Gov 
ernor  Giles  averred  that  his  feelings  were  much 
excited  by  the  mere  allusion  in  Mr.  Monroe's  speech  to  the 
possibility  of  the  Federal  government  rendering  aid  in  the 
emancipation  of  slaves.  Randolph  spoke  against  the  white 
basis  on  the  14th  of  November.  Madison  and  Monroe 
preferred  the  white  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  and 
the  Federal  basis  for  the  Senate,  Marshall  and  Leigh  the 
Federal  basis  for  both  houses.1 


1  But  Madison,  on  the  16th  of  November,  voted  for  Leigh's  plan  for  a 
Federal  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  ;  Monroe  voted  in  the  negative 
on  that  proposition. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.         155 

Leigh's  proposition,  providing  for  a  Federal  basis  for  tho 
House  of  Delegates,  was  rejected,  as  were  likewise  several 
others,  among  them  Pleasants's  for  a  Senate  on  the  white 
and  a  House  of  Delegates  on  the  Federal  basis.  The  fight 
now  seemed  to  be  between  the  plans  of  Upshur  and  Cooke, 
— the  Federal  basis  in  both  houses,  or  only  in  the  Senate. 
Cooke  and  some  of  his  party  had  modified  their  demand, 
but  others  refused  to  accept  less  than  a  white  basis  for  both 
House  and  Senate.  Somewhat  later  Upshur  supported  res 
olutions  offered  by  Gordon,  which  were  different  from  his 
own  in  the  proportion  of  members  allowed  the  eastern  and 
western  sections  of  the  State,  the  Blue  Ridge  being  the 
dividing  line.  But  the  whole  question  of  apportionment 
was  referred  to  the  committee,  on  the  final  The  Virginia 
draft,  of  which  Madison  was  chairman.1  The  constitution 
subject  excited  much  attention  in  the  closing  * 
days  of  the  session.  The  new  constitution  was  adopted  on 
the  14th  of  January.2 

1  Doddridge  was  appointed,  but  declined  the  honor.     Madison  made 
the  report.     The  apportionment  of  members  of  the  legislature  was  re 
committed. 

2  Article  III.  of  the  Virginia  Constitution  of  1830  states  that  the  House 
of  Delegates  shall  contain  134  members,  elected  annually,  for  and  by  the 
several  counties,  cities,  towns,  and  boroughs  of  the  Commonwealth, 
whereof  31  delegates  shall  be  chosen  for  and  by  the  fourteen  counties 
lying  between  the  Alleghany  and  Blue  Ridge  Mountains,  42  for  and  by 
the  twenty-nine  counties  lying  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  and  above  tide 
water,  and  36  for  and  by  the  counties,  cities,  towns,  and  boroughs  lying 
upon  tide-water.     It  prescribes  that  the  Senate  shall  consist  of  32  mem 
bers,  of  whom  13  shall  be  chosen  for  and  by  the  counties  lying  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge,  and  19  for  and  by  the  counties,  cities,  towns,  and  boroughs 
lying  east  thereof ;  and  for  the  election  of  whom  the  counties,  cities,  etc., 
shall  be  divided  into  thirty-two  districts.     Reapportionment  once  in  ten 
years  is  provided  for  ;  but  the  number  of  delegates  and  the  number  of 
senators  from  the  aforesaid  great  districts  are  not  to  be  increased,  but 
only  the  separate  counties,  etc.,  in  accordance  with  increase  of  popula 
tion  in  the  same  for  the  purpose  of  securing  adequate  representation  in 
the  House  of  Delegates.    The  number  of  delegates  shall  not  exceed  150, 
nor  that  of  senators  36.     The  provisions  of  the  constitution  are  too 
elaborate  for  full   statement  here.     They  comprise   the  terms  of  the 
compromise  in  the  convention. 


156          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

In  the  opening  days  of  the  Congress,  session  of  1829-30, 
a  question  arose  in  the  Senate  which,  on  its  face,  bore  no 
session  of  1829-  mar^  °^  the  importance  that  attached  to  the 
so.  The  Foot  discussion  which  immediately  followed.  The 
resolution  of  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  offered  on 
the  29th  of  December,  related  entirely  to  public  lands.1  It 
provided  that  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed 
to  report,  as  to  the  expediency  of  limiting  for  a  certain 
period  the  sales  of  public  lands  to  such  as  had  heretofore 
been  offered  for  sale  and  were  subject  to  entry  at  the  mini 
mum  price,  and  also  as  to  whether  the  office  of  surveyor- 
general  might  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the 
public  interest.  While  it  is  not  proposed  in  the  present 
volume  to  discuss  the  general  question  of  the  public  lands, 
this  debate  is  so  closely  related  to  the  events  we  are  study- 
jng  as  not  only  to  justify  but  also  to  compel  consideration 
here  of  the  great  constitutional  points  involved.  Foot 
stated  that  the  Land  Commissioner's  returns  of  the  last 
session  showed  that  there  were  seventy-two  million  acres 
at  the  minimum  price  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents 
which  remained  unsold.  The  commissioner  said  that  the 
annual  demand  would  probably  be  a  million  acres.  Benton 
contended  that  it  was  not  a  fit  subject  for  enquiry.  "  The 
Senator  from  Connecticut  shakes  his  head,"  commented  the 
Missouri  Senator,  "  but  he  cannot  shake  the  conviction  out 
of  my  head  that  a  check  of  Western  emigration  will  be  the 
effect  of  this  resolution.  The  "West  is  my  country,  not  his ; 
I  know  it,  he  does  not."  After  further  remarks  by  several 
Senators,  the  subject  was  postponed.2  Discussion  was  re- 
i83o.  sumed  on  the  13th  of  January,  1830.  The 

January  is.  mover  of  the  resolution  expressed  surprise  that 
an  enquiry  should  be  made  a  special  order.  The  yeas  and 
nays  were  ordered.3  The  debate  which  followed  was  par 
ticipated  in  by  Kane,  of  Illinois,  Barton,  of  Missouri, 
McKinley,  of  Alabama,  and  Holmes,  Foot,  and  Benton.4 


1  Register  of  Debates  (vol.  xxi.)  of  Twenty-first  Congress,  p.  3. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  7.  » Ibid.,  p.  11.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  11-16. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          157 

The  Western  members  did  not  all  oppose  the  proposed 
investigation,  but  they  wished  the  surveys  and  sales  to  pro 
ceed,  and  declared,  without  exception,  that  they  were  hostile 
to  any  check  to  emigration  westward.  Some  of  them  dis 
claimed,  others  advocated  the  theory  that  the  sovereignty 
of  the  lands  rested  in  the  new  States.  Benton  Benton'SSpeech 
made  a  powerful  speech  on  the  18th  of  Janu-  of  the  isth  of 
ary.1  He  said  that  the  resolution  presented 
three  distinct  propositions :  1,  to  stop  the  surveying  of  the 
public  land ;  2,  to  limit  the  sales  of  the  land  now  in  mar 
ket  ;  3,  to  abolish  all  the  offices  of  the  surveyors-general. 
The  effect  of  these  propositions  would  be :  1,  to  check 
emigration  to  the  new  States  and  Territories ;  2,  to  limit 
their  settlement;  3,  to  deliver  up  large  portions  of  them  to 
the  dominion  of  wild  beasts ;  4,  to  remove  all  the  land  rec 
ords  from  the  new  States.  In  Missouri,  he  averred,  the  sur 
render  would  be  equal  to  two-thirds  of  the  State.  As  to  the 
enquiry,  he  remarked, "  I  take  my  stand  upon  a  great  moral 
principle, — that  it  is  never  right  to  enquire  into  the  expedi 
ency  of  doing  wrong." 2  The  enquiry  would  cause  alarm 
and  agitation  at  the  South  and  West.  It  was  not  only  un 
just  to  the  new  States,  but  partial  and  unequal  in  its  opera 
tions  among  them.  He  argued  that  the  effort  was  due  to 
the  desire  of  the  manufacturers  to  have  people  to  work  for 
poor  wages  who  wished  to  go  to  the  West  and  procure 
lands.3  He  repeated  Monroe  and  Grayson's  account  of  the 
attempt  in  1786  to  surrender  the  Missouri  River  to  the 
Spaniards,  and  showed  that  it  was  prevented  by  Southern 
votes  in  the  Congress.  He  also  recited  the  history  of  the 
clause  in  the  act  of  1785  requiring  all  land  to  be  sold  in  any 
township  before  additional  land  should  be  offered  for  sale. 
He  said  that  while  Virginia  was  surrendering  great  territo 
ries  Massachusetts  yielded  only  a  barren  claim,  reserving 
thirty  thousand  square  miles  which  she  held  in  the  North 
east.  She  was  noAV,  he  declared,  selling  this  at  five  to 


1  Register  of  Debates  (vol.  xxi.)  of  Twenty-first  Congress,  pp.  22-27. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  23.  8Ibid.,  p.  24. 


158          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

twenty-five  cents  an  acre.1  On  the  following  day  Holmes 
made  an  adroit  reply  to  the  charge  that  the  North  was  un- 
Hoimes's  reply  friendly  to  tne  West.  He  claimed  that  the  rapid 
toBenton.  growth  of  the  latter  section,  especially  of  the 
State  of  Missouri,  admitted  by  Eastern  votes,  refuted  the 
assertion.2  Woodbury  effected  a  flank  movement  upon 
woodbury  ef-  -^oot  ^J  proposing  an  amendment  extending  the 
fects  a  flank  investigation  into  the  expediency  of  hastening 
movement  the  surveys  au(1  sales  of  ]and>  Barton  favored 

and  Foot  opposed  the  amendment.  As  the  debate  pro 
gressed  it  was  assumed  by  the  speakers  in  opposition  that 
the  resolution  was  unfriendly  to  the  growth  of  the  Western 
States.3 

In  the  course  of  a  protracted  introduction,  Hayne  said 
that  if  the  gentlemen  who  had  discussed  the  resolution  had 
Hayne's  first  confined  their  remarks  strictly  to  the  subject 
speech.  he  would  have  spared  the  Senate  the  trouble  of 

listening  to  him  oh  the  occasion.4  There  were  two  parties 
in  the  country  on  the  policy,  past  and  future,  of  the  govern 
ment  as  to  public  lands.  Either  we  are  regarded,  he  pro 
ceeded,  as  weak,  indulgent  parents  or  hard  taskmasters. 
He  would  content  himself  with  noticing  one  or  two  partic 
ulars  in  relation  to  which  it  had  long  appeared  to  him  that 
the  West  had  cause  for  complaint.  The  plan  had  been 
pursued  invariably  of  selling  certain  portions  of  the  lands 
from  time  to  time  at  the  highest  market  price,  and,  until  a 
few  years  past,  on  long  credits.  Nations  who  had  colonized 
the  North  American  continent — English,  French,  and  Span 
iards — had  required  of  purchasers  only  a  penny  or  a  pepper 
corn.5  "  It  is  said,  sir,  that  we  learn  from  our  own  misfor 
tunes  how  to  feel  for  the  sufferings  of  others ;  and  perhaps 
the  present  condition  of  the  Southern  States  has  served  to 
impress  more  deeply  on  my  own  mind  the  grievous  oppres 
sion  of  a  system  by  which  the  wealth  of  a  country  is  drained 
off  to  be  expended  elsewhere.  Nearly  the  whole  of  our 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  26.  a  Ibid.,  p.  28. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  30,  and  other  pages.        *  Ibid.,  p.  31.        6  Ibid.,  p.  32. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND  OTHER  EVENTS.          159 

contributions  is  expended  abroad;  we  stand  towards  the 
United  States  in  the  relation  of  Ireland  to  England.  The 
fruits  of  our  labor  are  drawn  from  us  to  enrich  other  and 
more  favored  sections  of  the  Union,  while  with  one  of  the 
finest  climates  and  richest  products  in  the  world,  furnishing 
with  one-third  of  the  population  two-  thirds  of  the  whole  ex 
port  of  the  country,  we  exhibit  the  extraordinary,  the  won 
derful,  and  painful  spectacle  of  a  country  enriched  by  the 
bounty  of  God,  but  cursed  by  the  cruel  policy  of  man.  The 
rank  grass  grows  in  our  streets  ;  our  very  fields  are  scathed 
by  the  hand  of  injustice  and  oppression.  Such,  sir,  though 
probably  in  a  less  degree,  must  have  been  the  effects  of  a 
similar  policy  on  the  fortunes  of  the  West."  l  He  defined 
the  irreconcilable  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  public 
lands  and  the  future  policy  in  connection  therewith  of  the 
government.  "  On  the  one  side  it  is  contended  that  the 
public  land  ought  to  be  reserved  as  a  permanent  fund  for 
revenue  and  future  distribution  among  the  States  ;  while  on 
the  other,  it  is  insisted  that  the  whole  of  these  lands  of 
right  belong  to  and  ought  to  be  relinquished  to  the  States 
in  which  they  lie."  He  questioned  the  policy  of  converting 
these  lands  into  a  great  source  of  revenue. 
"  Certain  it  is,"  he  said,  "  that  all  the  efforts  e 


heretofore  made  for  this  purpose  have  most  sig-  source  of  rev- 
nally  failed."  He  spoke  of  the  harshness  of  such 
proceeding,  and  of  schemes  for  roads,  canals,  schools,  etc. 
It  was  a  permanent  treasure  not  drawn  from  the  people's 
pockets,  not  promotive  of  the  public  welfare.  He  alluded 
to  the  temptations  to  which  it  would  expose  "  our  national 
rulers."  2  It  was,  he  said,  a  fund  for  corruption.  "  It  would 
enable  Congress  and  the  executive  to  exercise  a  control 
over  States  as  well  as  over  great  interests  in  the  country  — 
nay,  even  over  corporations  and  individuals  —  utterly  de 
structive  of  the  purity  and  fatal  to  the  duration  of  our 
institutions."  Like  Benton,  he  referred  to  the  report  of 
Secretary  Rush,  and  expressed  his  great  abhorrence  and  de- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  33,  a  Ibidem. 


160         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

testation  of  the  proposition  to  check  the  sales  of  public  lands 
in  order  to  keep  the  poorer  class  of  laborers  in  the  Eastern 
manufactories.1  He  waived  present  consideration  of  what 
he  called  numerous  and  powerful  objections  to  the  plan  of 
State  distribution  of  lands,  —  a  subject  recently  discussed  in 
the  House  and  shortly  to  be  taken  up  in  the  Senate.  He 
thought  that  the  claims  of  sovereignty  over  the  lands  made 
HIS  plan  hinted  by  Indiana  and  Alabama  were  inadmissible,  and 
at-  seemed  to  prefer  to  others  a  plan  of  relinquish- 

ment  to  the  States  at  something  more  than  a  nominal  price.2 
Foot,  on  the  20th  of  January,  modified  his  resolution, 
as  suggested  by  Sprague,  to  meet  the  views  expressed  by 
Woodbury.     But  the  event  of  that  day  in  the 
discussion  was   the  speech  of   Webster.3    As 
usual,  his  opening  remarks  were  brief  and  led  immediately 
to  the  matter  in  hand.     His  compendious  statement  of  the 
main  question  was  admirable.    He  said,  u  There 
are  more  lands  than  purchasers.     It  is  obvious 
that  no  artificial  regulation,  no  forcing  of  sales,  no  giving 
away  of  the  lands  even,  can  produce  any  great  and  sudden 
augmentation.     My  own  opinion  has  uniformly  been  that 
the  public  lands  should  be  offered  freely  and  at  low  prices." 
He  argued  that  speculation  on  a  large  scale  should  not  be 
encouraged  and  vast  quantities  of  the  land  should  not  be 
thrown  on  the  market,  reducing  prices  to  nothing.     Reply 
ing  to  Hayne's  attack  on  the  policy  of  the  gov- 
on  the    eminent  towards  purchasers,  he  denied  alto- 


government's      gether  that  there  had  been  anything  harsh  or 

land  policy.  J  & 

severe  in  that  policy  towards  the  ten  States  of 
the  West.  On  the  contrary,  he  maintained  that  it  had  uni 
formly  pursued  towards  those  States  a  liberal  and  enlight 
ened  system,  such  as  its  own  duty  allowed  and  required, 
and  such  as  their  welfare  demanded.  He  also  denied  the 
analogy  with  the  original  North  American  colonists.  "  Gen 
erally  speaking,"  said  Mr.  Webster,  "  they  derived  neither 
succor  nor  protection  from  the  governments  at  home." 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  34.         2  Ibid.,  p.  35.         3  Ibid.,  pp.  35-41. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          161 

But  he  claimed  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
had  made,  from  the  first,  the  protection  of  these  communi 
ties  the  leading  objects  of  policy,  laying  special  stress  upon 
the  protection  from  Indians  and  the  purchase  of  Indian 
titles.1  The  public  lands  had  been  derived  from  four  prin 
cipal  sources.  First,  cessions  made  by  individual  States  to 
the  United  States  on  the  recommendation  of  the  old  Con 
gress.  Second,  the  compact  with  Georgia  in  1802.  Third, 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  Fourth,  the  purchase  of  Florida. 
He  examined  "  the  causes  and  occasions"  of  the  grants  by 
the  States,  to  show  that  they  were  for  the  common  benefit 
of  existing  and  future  States.  "  The  gentleman,"  he  ob 
served,  "  admits  that  the  lands  cannot  be  given  away  until 
the  national  debt  is  paid,  because  to  a  part  of  the  debt  they 
stand  pledged.  But  this  is  not  the  original  pledge.  There 
is,  so  to  speak,  an  earlier  mortgage.  Before  the  debt  was 
funded,  at  the  moment  of  the  cession  of  the  lands,  and  by 
the  very  terms  of  that  cession,  every  State  in  the  Union 
obtained  an  interest  in  them,  as  in  a  common  fund.  Con 
gress  has  uniformly  adhered  to  this  condition."  He  said 
that  the  government  had  not  felt  itself  at  liberty  to  dispose 
of  the  soil  in  large  masses  to  individuals,  thus  leaving  to 
them  the  time  and  manner  of  settlement.  Who  could  say 
what  mischiefs  would  have  ensued  if  Congress  had  thrown 
these  Territories  into  the  hands  of  private  speculation  ? 2 

Webster  said  that  he  had  heard  not  without  regret  and 
pain  the  sentiments  of  the  honorable  member  (Hayne)  in 
wishing  that  the  government  might  never  have  a  permanent 
source  of  revenue,  and  his  claim  that  this  would  consolidate 
the  government  and  corrupt  the  people.  He  knew  that  such 
opinions  were  entertained  outside,  but  he  did  not  expect  so 
soon  to  find  them  here.  Consolidation !  that  . 

He  brings  in  the 

perpetual  cry,  both  of  terror  and  delusion, —    topic    of    the 
consolidation !     In  this  passage  he  appears  to 
go  out  of  his  way  to  bring  in  the  topic  of  the  Union,  or  rather 
of  its  opposite,  disunion.     He  avows  his  devotion  to  what  he 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  36.  * Ibid.,  p.  37. 

11 


162          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

calls  "  General  Washington's  consolidation,  .  .  .  the  true 
constitutional  consolidation."  He  averred  that  he  could  not 
but  regret  the  expression  of  such  opinions  as  the  gentleman 
had  expressed,  because  their  tendency  was  to  weaken  the 
bond  of  union.1  Conveniently  ignoring  his  own  position, 
that  of  his  adopted  State,  and  that  of  his  section  in  the  war 
of  1812,  he  proceeded :  "  The  tendency  of  all  these  ideas  and 
sentiments  is  obviously  to  bring  the  Union  into  discussion 
as  a  mere  question  of  present  and  temporary  expediency, — 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  profit  and  loss."  He 
claimed  that  such  persons  "  cherished  no  deep  and  fixed 
regard  for  the  Union."  On  another  point  he  was  suspicious 
and  aggressive.  He  charged  that  there  was  a  disposition  to 
rejoice  at  the  early  extinguishment  of  the  debt  on  account 
of  the  supposed  incidental  tendencies  and  effects  of  the 
debt.  While  he  would  not  continue  the  debt  for  the  sake 
of  any  collateral  or  consequential  advantage, — "a  tie  hold 
ing  different  parts  of  the  Union  together  by  considerations 
of  mutual  interests," — he  meant  to  say  that  that  consequence 
itself  was  not  one  that  he  regretted.2  He  contradicted  the 
sum  total  and  the  detail  of  what  Hayne  had  said  of  Eastern 
The  East  and  selfishness.3  "  But  the  tariff!  the  tariff!"  he 
the  tariff.  exclaimed.  "Sir,  I  beg  to  say,  in  regard  to 

the  East,  that  the  original  policy  of  the  tariff  is  not  hers, 
whether  it  be  wise  or  unwise.  It  was  truly  more  a  Southern 
than  an  Eastern  measure.  And  what  votes  carried  the  tariff 
of  1824?  Certainly  not  those  of  New  England.  It  is 
known  to  have  been  made  matter  of  reproach,  especially 
against  Massachusetts,  that  she  would  not  aid  the  tariff  of 
1824,  and  a  selfish  motive  was  imputed  to  her  for  that 
also."4  In  this  speech  Mr.  Webster  asserted 
that  Nathan  Bane,  of  Massachusetts,  drew  the 
anti-slavery  ordinance  of  1787  and  that  it  was  adopted  by 
the  Congress,  as  he  had  understood,  without  the  slightest 
alteration.  He  proclaimed  its  exclusion  of  involuntary 
servitude  "  a  great  and  salutary  measure  of  prevention." 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  38.  2  Ibid.,  p.  38. 

3  Bentou  had  said  even  more.  *  Register  of  Debates,  p.  39. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          163 

He  affirmed  that  it  was  carried  by  the  North,  and  by  the 
North  alone.1  One  of  his  most  effective  points  was  in  the 
quotations  which  he  made  from  a  debate  in  the  House  in 
1825  with  McDuffie,  on  the  subject  of  the  Western  road, 
where  the  Southern  leader  advocated  limiting  government 
sales  of  land.2  Webster  concluded  by  moving  the  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  resolution.  Benton  replied. 

On  Thursday,  the  21st  of  January,  Chambers,  saying  that 
Webster  had  "  unavoidable  engagements  out  of  the  Senate," 
endeavored  to  procure  a  postponement  of  the  debate.  But 
Hayne  was  unwilling  that  the  subject  should  be  postponed. 
He  remarked  that  he  saw  the  gentleman  (Web- 

&  V  January  21. 

ster)  in  his  seat,  and  presumed  he  could  arrange  Hayne's  second 
to  be  present  that  day.  He  (Hayne)  would  not  speech- 
deny  that  some  things  had  fallen  from  that  gentleman  which 
rankled  here  (touching  his  breast)  from  which  he  would 
desire  at  once  to  relieve  himself.  The  gentleman  had  dis 
charged  his  fire  in  the  face  of  the  Senate.  He  (Hayne) 
hoped  he  would  now  afford  him  the  opportunity  of  return 
ing  the  shot.  "  I  am  ready  to  receive  it,"  replied  Webster. 
"Let  the  discussion  proceed."3  After  Benton  had  con 
cluded  his  remarks,  begun  on  the  preceding  day,  Hayne 
took  the  floor  to  reply  to  Webster.  He  spoke  for  about  an 
hour  and  resumed  on  the  following  Monday,  when  he  ad 
dressed  the  Senate  for  two  hours  and  a  half.4  Hayne  said 
that  he  had  "  impeached  no  man's  motives ;  he  had  charged 
no  party,  State,  or  section  with  hostility  to  any  other.  The 
gentleman  from  Missouri  had  charged  upon  the  Eastern 
States  an  early  and  continued  hostility  towards  the  West, 
and  had  referred  to  a  number  of  historical  facts  and  docu 
ments  in  support  of  that  charge.  The  honorable  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  after  deliberating  a  whole  night  upon 
his  course,  comes  into  this  chamber  to  vindicate  New  Eng 
land,  and,  instead  of  making  up  his  issue  with  the  gentle 
man  from  Missouri,  selects  me  as  his  adversary,  losing  sight 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  40.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  40-41. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  41.  4  Ibid.,  p.  43. 


164         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

entirely  of  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  He  goes  on  to 
assail  the  institutions  and  policy  of  the  South,  and  calls  in 
question  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the  State  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  represent."  Mr.  Hayne  then  said  that  he 
was  bound  to  believe  that  the  gentleman  had  some  object 
in  view  which  he  had  not  disclosed.  Had  the  gentleman 
discovered  in  former  controversies  with  the  gentleman  from 
Missouri  that  he  was  overmatched  by  that  gentleman  ?  and 
does  he  hope  for  an  easy  victory  over  a  more  feeble  adver 
sary  ?  Has  the  ghost  of  the  murdered  Coalition  come  back, 
like  the  ghost  of  Banquo,  to  "  sear  the  eyeballs"  of  the  gen 
tleman,  and  will  it  not  "  down  at  his  bidding"  ?  Hayne 
declared  that  if  Webster's  purpose  was  to  thrust  him  be 
tween  the  gentleman  from  Missouri  and  himself,  he  should 
not  be  gratified.  The  South  shall  not  be  forced  into  a  con 
flict  not  its  own.  The  gallant  West  needs  no  aid  from  the 
South  to  repel  attack  from  any  quarter.  Further  on  Hayne, 
referring  to  the  land  policy  of  the  government,  said  that  the 
gentleman  had  introduced  to  our  notice  a  certain  Nathan 
Dane,  of  Massachusetts,  to  whom  he  attributed  the  Ordinance 
of  1787.  Hayne  declared  that  to  such  high  authority  it  was 
certainly  his  duty  to  submit  in  a  becoming  spirit  of  humility. 
And  yet  it  was  unfortunate  for  the  fame  of  this  great  legis 
lator  that  the  gentleman  from  Missouri  should  have  proved 
that  he  was  not  the  author  of  that  ordinance.  Until  yester 
day  Mr.  Dane  was  known  to  the  South  only  as  a  member 
of  the  Hartford  Convention.  By  the  second  resolution  of 
that  convention  it  is  declared  "  that  it  is  expedient  to 
attempt  to  make  provisions  for  restraining  Congress  in  the 
exercise  of  unlimited  power  to  make  new  States  and  admit 
-them  into  the  Union."1  He  showed  from  the  speech  of 
Webster's  in  1825,  quoted  by  the  latter  the  day  before,  that 
Webster  "  could  never  think  that  the  national  domain  was 
•to  be  regarded  as  any  great  source  of  revenue."2  He  con 
tended,  therefore,  that  Webster  had  changed  his  views,  as 
,he  now  advocated  holding  the  lands  as  a  "  treasure,"  and 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  44.        t 

•*  Delivered  January  18,  1825.        Register  of  Debates,  vol.  i.  p.  251. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          165 

replied  to  the  claim  of  the  latter  that  the  East  had  shown 
greater  friendliness  to  the  West  than  had  the  South.  Would 
the  gentleman,  he  asked,  have  us  to  manifest  our  great  love 
to  the  West  hy  trampling  under  foot  our  constitutional 
scruples?  When  the  gentleman  tells  us  that  the  appro 
priations  for  internal  improvements  in  the  West  would  in 
almost  every  instance  have  failed  but  for  the  Eastern  votes, 
he  has  forgotten  to  tell  us  the  when,  the  how,  and  the  where 
fore  this  new-born  zeal  for  the  West  sprung  up  in  the 
bosom  of  New  England.  If  he  will  look  back  only  a  few 
years,  he  will  find  in  both  houses  of  Congress  an  uniform 
and  steady  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  mem- 

J  ,,     Opposition      of 

bers  from  the  Eastern  States  generally  to  all  the  East  to  ap- 
appropriatioris  of  this  character.  This  was  the  ^p^tions  for 
case  at  the  time  that  he  (Hayne)  became  a 
member  of  the  Senate,  and  for  some  time  afterwards.1  A 
wonderful  change  in  this  regard  took  place  in  New  England 
in  1824,  while  the  election  of  the  President  was  still  in 
doubt  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Referring  to  the 
payment  of  the  public  debt  and  the  passage  on  the  same  in 
Webster's  speech,  Hayne  said,  "  Sir,  let  me  tell  that  gentle 
man  that  the  South  repudiates  the  idea  that  a  pecuniary  de 
pendence  on  the  Federal  government  is  one  of  the  legitimate 
means  of  holding  the  States  together."  He  appeared  to 
doubt  the  willingness  of  Webster  and  his  party  to  have  the 
debt  paid  off."2 

One  of  the  most  effective  parts  of  Hayne's  argument  was 
his  defence  of  the  South  from  the  charge  of  weakness  im 
plied  in  Webster's   preference   for  Ohio   over 
Kentucky.     "  Sir,"  he  declared,  "  we  will  not 
consent  to  look  at  slavery  in  the  abstract.    We  will  not  look 
back  to  enquire  whether  our  fathers  were  guiltless  in  intro 
ducing  slaves  into  this  country.    Southern  ships  and  South 
ern  sailors  were  not  the  instruments  of  bringing  slaves  to 
the  shores  of  America,  nor  did  our  merchants  reap  the 
profit  of  that  accursed  traffic.     Finding  our  lot  cast  among 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  45.  *  Ibid.,  p.  46. 


166          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

a  people  whom  God  had  manifestly  committed  to  our  care, 
we  did  not  sit  down  to  speculate  on  abstract  questions  of 
theoretical  liberty.  We  met  it  as  a  practical  question  of 
obligation  and  duty."  He  described  the  negroes  as  an  in 
ferior  people,  whom  it  were  inhuman  to  send  back  to  their 
native  Africa,  there  to  degenerate,  and  on  account  of  their 
numbers  it  was  impracticable.  He  contrasted  the  free 
blacks  of  Northern  cities  with  the  Southern  slaves,  to  the 
advantage  of  the  latter.  Webster  was  asked  for  proofs  of 
Southern  weakness.1 

,lfayne\quoted  a  passage  from  Matthew  Carey's  Olive 
Braftehf as  follows,  but  disavowed  the  sentiments  as  his 
own :  "If  a  separation  were  desirable  to  any  part  of  the 
Union,  it  would  be  to  the  Middle  and  Southern  States,  par 
ticularly  to  the  latter,  who  have  been  so  long  harassed  with 
the  complaints,  the  restlessness,  the  turbulence,  and  the  in 
gratitude  of  the  Eastern  States,  that  their  patience  has  been 
tried  almost  beyond  endurance."  He  quoted  this  to  show 
that  at  a  former  time  different  views  had  prevailed  as  to 
the  weakness  of  the  South.  "  Whatever  difference  of 
opinion,"  he  asserted,  "  may  exist  as  to  the  effect  of  slavery 
on  national  wealth  and  prosperity,  if  we  may  trust  to  expe 
rience,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  never  yet  has  produced 
any  injurious  effect  on  individual  or  national  character." 
He  pointed  to  "  the  Old  Dominion,  magnanimous  Virginia, 
'whose  jewels  are  her  sons/  Is  there,"  he  asked,  "any 
State  in  this  Union  which  has  contributed  so  much  to  the 
honor  and  welfare  of  the  country  ?" 

The  object  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  he  averred, 
was  the  consolidation  of  the  Union,  not  of  the  government.3 
The  grounds  in  The  grounds  in  dispute  between  the  Senator 
dispute.  from  Massachusetts  and  himself  were  the  very 

grounds  which  had  divided  parties  from  the  beginning.  In 
every  age  and  country  there  have  been  two  distinct  orders 

1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  47. 

2  Olive  Branch,  p.  278.     Carey  was  a  Northern  writer,  the  father  of 
protection  literature  in  the  United  States. 

3  Register  of  Debates,  p.  48. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          167 

of  men, — the  lovers  of  freedom  and  the  devoted  advocates 
of  power.  He  rallied  Webster  as  to  his  sensitiveness  on  the 
subject  of  the  tariff.  At  the  Boston  meeting  of  1820  and 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1824  Webster,  he  said, 
was  the  leading  actor  and  the  fearless  and  powerful  advocate 
of  free  trade.  On  that  the  proudest  day  of  his  life,  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  like  a  mighty  giant,  bore  away 
upon  his  shoulders  the  pillars  of  the  temple  of  error  and  de 
lusion,  escaping  himself  unhurt  and  leaving  his  adversaries 
overwhelmed  in  its  ruins.1  From  the  tariff  he  passed  to 
charges  of  disunion,  which,  in  his  own  language,  he  met  not 
only  at  the  threshold,  but  carried  war  into  the  enemy's  ter 
ritory.  This  elaborate  statement  of  the  South's 

J  f  .  The  South 's  de- 

devotion  in  the  Revolution,  to  a  cause  she  might  votion  to  the 
have  avoided  espousing,  if  she  had  been  less  Umon- 
patriotic ;  of  New  England's  conduct  in  1798  and  the  war 
of  1812,  is  possibly  the  strongest  point  in  all  the  great  de 
bate  in  clear  demonstration  and  intense  power  of  sarcasm. 
Hayne  deprecated  sectionalism,  but  he  charged  that  Webster 
had  made  an  uncalled-for  attack  upon  the  South.  His  beau 
tiful  tribute  to  South  Carolina  was  the  inspiration  of  Web 
ster's  to  Massachusetts.2  Hayne  only  "  challenged  com 
parison  with  any  other  State  in  the  Union."  He  honored 
New  England,  but  claimed  that  equal  honor  was  due  to  the 
South  for  conduct  in  the  Revolution.  He  quoted  from  the 
speech  of  Josiah  Quincy  on  the  admission  of  Louisiana : 
"  If  this  bill  passes,  it  is  my  deliberate  opinion,"  said  Quincy, 
"that  it  is  a  dissolution  of  the  Union;  that  it  will  free  the 
States  from  their  moral  obligation ;  and  as  it  will  be  the 
right  of  all,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some,  to  prepare  for  a 
separation,  amicably  if  they  can,  violently  if  they  must."3 
To  the  New  England  Democrats,  he  thought,  higher  praise 
was  due  than  to  the  Democrats  of  the  South.  He  accepted 
Webster's  name,  "  Carolina  Doctrine,"  as  applied  to  the 
views  of  himself  and  his  friends,  and  assigned  as  its  basis 
the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798  and  Madison's  report  on 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  49.  2  Ibid.,  p.  50.  » Ibid.,  p.  55. 


168          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  subject.  Throughout  this  and  the  succeeding  speech 
Hayne  confined  himself  almost  entirely  for  constitutional 
authorities  to  these  documents,  although  he  referred  to  Jef 
ferson  and  once  or  twice  to  Hamilton's  fifty-first  number  of 
the  Federalist.  The  Kentucky  resolutions  were  also  quoted 
in  part.  This  second  speech  of  Hayne's  was  more  eloquent 
than  the  first :  there  were  several  passages  of  great  splendor, 
and  throughout  it  was  notably  elegant.  His  style  was  more 
diffuse  than  Webster's. 

The  latter  arose  immediately  to  reply,  but  owing  to  the 

lateness  of  the  hour  yielded  the  floor  for  an  adjournment. 

On  the  following  day,  when  the  Senate  resumed 

Webster's    sec-  .  .          °        J '  . 

ond  speech  in  the  discussion,  Webster  began  his  famous  reply 
reply  to  Hayne.  to  jjay ne> — that  is  to  say,  his  second  speech  on 
the  Foot  resolution.  He  spoke  that  day  until  half-past 
three  o'clock  P.M.,  but  did  not  conclude  his  remarks  until 
he  had  spoken  three  hours  on  the  following  day.1  The 
tone  of  Hayne's  speech,  derived  apparently  from  the  accu 
sations  in  the  first  speech  by  "Webster,  seemed  to  have 
offended  the  last-named  Senator,  who  called  for  the  reading 
of  the  pending  resolution,  thus  endeavoring  to  bring  the 
debate  back  whence  it  started.  He  said  that  in  a  two  days' 
speech  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  had  spoken  of 
everything  but  the  public  lands.2  Webster  also  alluded  in  his 
opening  remarks  to  Hayne's  observation  that  he  had  a  shot 
to  return.  "  That  shot,  sir,  which  it  was  kind  to  inform  us 
was  coming,  that  we  might  stand  out  of  the  way  or  prepare 
ourselves  to  fall  before  it  and  die  with  decency,  has  now 
been  received.  Under  all  advantages,  and  with  expectation 
awakened  by  the  tone  which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  dis 
charged  and  has  spent  its  force.  It  may  become  me  to  say 
no  more  of  its  effect  than  that,  if  nobody  is  found,  after  all, 
either  killed  or  wounded  by  it,  it  is  not  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  human  affairs  that  the  vigor  and  success  of  the 
war  have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sounding 
phrase  of  the  .manifesto."  Alluding  to  Hayne's  use  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  58.  2  Ibid.,  p.  59. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND  OTHER  EVENTS.          169 

word  "  rankling"  and  his  gesture  at  the  time,  Webster 
claimed  that  he  had  a  great  advantage  over  the  gentleman. 
"  There  is  nothing  here,  sir,"  tapping  his  breast  with  one 
hand,  "  which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness  ;  neither 
fear  nor  anger  nor  that  which  is  sometimes  more  trouble 
some  than  either,  —  the  consciousness  of  having  been  in 
the  wrong."  He  had  received  nothing  which  rankled 
or  had  in  any  way  given  him  annoyance.  There  was 
not  quite  strength  enough  in  the  gentleman's  bow  to 
so  impel  his  shafts  as  to  bring  them  to  their  mark.  He 
avoided  Hayne's  thrust  about  eluding  Benton  by  saying 
that  he  had  found  "  a  responsible  endorser  of  the  bill  and 
did  not  stop  to  enquire  who  was  the  original  drawer."  He 
gave  an  answer,  he  said,  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unanswer 
able,  was  most  likely  to  produce  injurious  impressions.  In 
the  oft-quoted  passage  of  this  speech  of  "Webster's  about 
"  matches  and  overmatches,"  l  in  which  Webster  himself 
showed  great  excitement,  he  said  that  Hayne  had  been  ex 
cited  and  angry.  A  Jovian  air  pervaded  the  whole  speech. 
In  the  purely  personal  parts,  Webster,  by  his  Webster  gupe. 
tremendous  rhetoric,  appeared  generally  to  have  yior  to  Hayne 
had  the  advantage.  Very  deftly  he  turned  the 


Banquo  quotation  back  upon  his  opponent.  cussion- 
But  Mr.  Webster  was  not  happy  in  his  retort  as  to  Dane, 
that  the  latter  was  "  too  near  the  north  star  to  be  reached 
by  the  gentleman's  telescope."  Hayne  had  been  exception 
ally  kind  in  his  references  to  the  North  and  Northern  men. 
Another  instance  of  Webster's  unfairness  in  argument  when 
under  excitement  was  in  a  subsequent  passage,  where  he 
accused  Hayne,  against  the  latter's  express  disclaimer  in  his 
former  speech,  of  defending  slavery  in  the  abstract.  "  There 
is  not,"  said  Mr.  Webster,  continuing,  "  and  never  has  been  a 
disposition  in  the  North  to  interfere  with  these  (slave)  inter 
ests  in  the  South."  2  Again,  "  I  regard  domestic  slavery  as 
one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  both  moral  and  political."  But 
he  left  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty  it  was  to  inquire  and 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  59.  2  Ibid.,  p.  61. 


170          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

to  decide  whether  it  were  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what  means ; 
or  whether  it  were  the  vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  system. 
And  this  he  believed  uniformly  to  have  been  the  sentiment 
of  the  North.  He  went  into  the  history  of  the  matter  to 
show  apparently  that  while  some  Southern  men  *  thought 
that  Congress  could  interfere,  a  committee  of  the  First 
Congress,  composed,  except  one  member  from  Virginia,  of 
Northern  men,  reported  that  the  subject  of  domestic  slavery 
was  not  in  the  authority  of  the  Congress,  but  in  that  of  the 
States.  The  North  was  in  a  large  majority  in  that  house. 
The  Ordinance  of  1787  encouraged  schools  by  a  high  and 
binding  declaration  of  the  government  itself,  and  first  re 
strained  legislative  power  in  questions  of  private  right  and 
from  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts.  He  claimed 
that  the  Journal  refuted  the  attempt  which  had  been  made 
to  transfer  from  the  North  to  the  South  the  honor  of  the 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  Northwest  Territory.2 

Webster  said  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Hartford  Con 
vention  were  less  read  and  studied  in  New  England  than 
farther  South  as  a  precedent,  but  would  not  answer  the 
purpose, — the  latitude  in  which  they  originated  was  too 
cold.  After  some  further  pleasantry,  he  observed,  "  I  have 
nothing  to  do,  sir,  with  the  Hartford  Convention.  Its  jour 
nal,  which  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I  have  never  read. 
The  Hartford  So  far  as  the  honorable  member  may  discover 
convention.  jn  j^g  proceedings  a  spirit  in  any  degree  resem 
bling  that  which  was  avowed  and  justified  in  those  other 
conventions3  to  which  I  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  these 
proceedings  can  be  shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Constitution 
or  tending  to  disunion,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as  any  one 
to  bestow  on  them  reprehension  and  censure." 4  He  claimed 
that  there  was  no  difference  between  his  speech  of  1825 
and  his  present  views  on  the  subject  of  the  public  lands. 
"  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph  away." 5  Webster 

1  Governor  Edmund  Randolph,  for  instance. 

2  See  Benton's  reply,  further  on. 

3  Colleton  and  Abbeville,  South  Carolina. 

*  Register  of  Debates,  p.  62.  5  Ibid.,  p.  63. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          171 

was  unsuccessful  in  his  attempt  to  fix  on  Hayne  the  charge 
of  having  attacked  the  East,  as  a  justification  of  his  own 
attack  on  the  South.1  There  was  nothing  in  Hayne's 
speech  to  justify  Webster's  assault,  although  there  might 
have  heen  in  Benton's  matter  for  severe  rejoinder  to  that 
Senator.  In  reply  to  Hayne's  challenge  to  show  when, 
how,  and  why  New  England  votes  were  found  cast  for 
measures  favorable  to  the  West,  Webster  mentioned  two  as 
"  samples  and  specimens  of  all  the  rest."  In  1820,  in  favor 
of  reducing  the  price  of  lands,  New  England  gave  thirty- 
two  of  thirty-three  votes  for  it  and  only  one  against.  Four 
Southern  States  gave  thirty-two  votes  out  of  fifty  for  and 
seven  against  the  proposition.  Again,  in  1821,  on  the  bill 
for  the  relief  of  the  purchasers  of  lands,  New  England  also 
gave  more  affirmative  votes  than  the  South,  with  their  fifty- 
two  or  fifty-three  members.2  In  this  passage  Webster  was 
very  sarcastic  and  his  manner  was  triumphant. 

The  war  of  1812,  he  argued,  had  rendered  a  new  internal 
policy  necessary.     He  reviewed  the  powers  of 

J  J  .  r    .  A   new    policy 

the  general  government  in  the  Constitution,  and  made  necessary 
settled,  so  far  as  his  own  mind  was  concerned,  ^Jl2the  war  of 
the  constitutionality  of  internal  improvements. 
"  And  now,"  so  he  concluded  this  part  of  his  subject  with 
an  address  to  Vice-President  Calhoun,  "  and  now  I  have 
further  to  say  that  I  made  up  these  opinions  .  .  .  and 
entered  on  this  course  of  political  conduct,  Teucro  duce. 
Yes,  sir,  I  pursued  in  all  this  a  South  Carolina  track." 
He  said  that  a  leading  gentleman  of  that  State  was  first 
and  foremost  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  internal  improve 
ment.  The  tariff  of  1816,  one  of  the  plain  causes  of  op 
pression  from  which  if  the  government  did  not  recede  it 
was  said  independent  South  Carolina  might  secede,  was  in 
truth  a  South  Carolina  tariff.  But  for  those  votes  it  could 
not  have  passed  in  the  form  in  which  it  did  pass ;  whereas, 
if  it  had  depended  on  Massachusetts  votes,  it  would  have 
been  lost.  In  triumph  he  queried,  "  Does  not  the  honor- 

1  Register  of  Debates.  2  Ibid.,  p.  65. 


172          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

able  gentleman  well  know  all  this  ?"  l  He  said  that  in  six 
years  a  party  had  arisen  in  the  South  hostile  to  the  policy 
of  internal  improvements. 

In  order  to  fasten  the  charge  of  inconsistency  upon  Hayne, 
Bandying  in  retaliation  for  the  latter  's  citation  from  the 
coSncy  *"  ^atQ  of  1825,  Webster  arraigned  his  adver- 
with  Hayne.  sary  for  voting,  in  April,  1824,  for  a  hill  to  secure 
the  necessary  plans,  surveys,  and  estimates  upon  the  subject 
of  roads  and  canals.  Although  this  measure  was  prelimi 
nary,  Webster  said  it  covered  the  whole  ground.  Continu 
ing,  he  observed,  "  I  repeat  that,  up  to  1824,  1  for  one  fol 
lowed  South  Carolina;  but  when  that  State  in  its  ascension 
veered  off  in  an  unexpected  direction,  I  relied  on  its  light  no 
longer."  At  this  point  the  Vice-President  interrupted  the 
speaker,  —  "Does  the  Chair  understand  the  gen- 

The  Vice-Presi-       r 

dent  asks  a  tleman  from  Massachusetts  to  say  that  the  per- 
question.  gon  nQW  OCCUpyjng  the  chair  of  the  Senate  has 

changed  his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  internal  improve 
ments  ?"  Mr.  Webster  resumed,  and  replied,  "  From  noth 
ing  ever  said  to  me,  sir,  have  I  had  reason  to  know  of  any 
change  in  the  opinions  of  the  person  filling  the  chair  of  the 
Senate.  If  such  has  taken  place,  I  regret  it.  I  speak  gen 
erally  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina."  He  made  an  elab 
orate  explanation  of  his  own  change  on  the  tariff  question. 
Of  the  action  in  Massachusetts  he  said,  "  Our  only  option 
was  to  fall  in  with  this  settled  course  of  public 
policy  and  accommodate  ourselves  as  well  as 


sachusetts  on  we  C0uld,  or  to  embrace  the  South  Carolina 
doctrine  and  talk  of  nullifying  the  statute  by 
State  interference."  2  He  referred  to  his  speech  of  1824,  de 
clined  to  restate  his  reasons  for  voting  against  the  bill  of 
that  year,  and  cited  the  latest  views  of  Madison  on  the 
tariff  question,  by  which  he  was  greatly  impressed. 

The  weakest  part  of  Webster's  second  speech,  perhaps, 
was  that  which  was  necessarily  so,  —  the  reply  to  Hayne's 
strongest  point,  the  disunion  sentiment  in  New  England  just 

1  Kegister  of  Debates,  p.  67.  3  Ibid.,  p.  69. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND  OTHER  EVENTS.          173 

preceding  and  pending  the  war  of  1812.1  He  did  not  un 
dertake  a  particular  statement,  but  made  a  scornful  general 
denial.  "  Why,  sir,  he  has  stretched  a  drag-net 
over  the  whole  surface  of  perished  pamphlets, 
indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming  popular 
addresses;  over  whatever  the  pulpit  in  its  moments  of 
alarm,  the  press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extrava 
gance  have  severally  thrown  off  in  time  of  general  excite 
ment  and  violence."  In  this  indignant  strain,  entirely 
forgetful  of  what  he  had  said  of  "  the  learned  doctors  of 
Colleton  and  Abbeville,"  the  great  Senator  proceeded  to 
justify  the  Federal  party  in  New  England  by  the  abuse  of 
President  Washington  by  the  Republicans.  His  pungent 
reference  to  the  process  "  by  which  the  whole  Essex  Junto 
could  in  one  hour  be  all  washed  white  from  their  ancient 
Federalism"  was  one  of  the  best  sarcasms  with  which  the 
whole  discussion  was  scintillant,  because  it  was  apropos  of 
the  political  situation  of  the  time.2 

After  a  brilliant  passage  on  the  devotion  and  heroism  of 
Massachusetts  in  the  Revolution,  he  presented  a  full  exposi 
tion  of  his  own  views  of  constitutional  construction.3  A. 
colloquy  between  Webster  and  Hayne  shows 

^-    J  *  Colloquy       be- 

vividly  the  difference  between  the  two  schools  tween  Webster 
they  represented.  Webster  knew  no  right  of  and  Hayne< 
resistance  but  popular  revolution.  Hayne  did  not  contend 
for  "  the  mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of  con 
stitutional  resistance."  Webster  "  so  understood  the  gentle 
man.  What  he  contends  for  is  that  it  is  constitutional  to 
interrupt  the  administration  of  the  Constitution  itself." 
Webster  did  not  deny  the  inherent  right  of  the  people  to 
reform  their  government,  and,  he  said,  "  they  have  another 
right,  and  that  is  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws  without 
overturning  the  government.  It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine 
that  unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people.  But  I  do  not 
admit  that  under  the  Constitution  and  in  conformity  with 
it  there  is  any  mode  in  which  a  State  government  as  a 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  70-72.        a  Ibid.,  p.  70.        3  Ibid.,  p.  72. 


174          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

member  of  the  Union  can  interfere  and  stop  the  progress 
of  the  general  government,  by  force  of  her  own  laws,  under 
any  circumstances  whatever."  l  Enquiring  into  the  origin 
and  nature  of  the  government,  he  found  that  it  was  not  the 
ori  -n  and  na  aSent  °^  ^6  State  governments,  but  the  creature 
ture  of  the  gov-  of  the  people.  "  We  are  all  agents  of  the  same 

supreme  power,  the  people.  The  general  gov 
ernment  and  the  State  governments  derive  their  authority 
from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other, 
be  called  primary,  though  one  is  definite  and  restricted  and 
the  other  general  and  residuary." 2  He  everywhere  set  up 
the  sovereignty  of  the  whole  people  over  the  sovereignty 
of  the  State  governments, — even  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
the  majority,  irrespective  of  State  lines.  He  asserted  that 
New  England  opinion  as  to  the  unconstitutionality  of  the 
Embargo  Act  never  reached  the  point  of  advocating  dis 
union.3  He  said  that  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798 
were  "  not  a  little  indefinite."  They  meant,  he  thought, 
complaint  and  remonstrance  and  only  contended  for  a 
general  right  of  revolution.  In  this  passage  he  remarked 
frequently  that  the  Federal  government  was  not  the  creature 
of  the  State  legislatures.  The  Supreme  Court  under  the 
Constitution  was  to  decide  in  questions  of  conflict  between 
States  and  Federal  government.  The  remedy  of  the  people, 
if  they  had  made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  distribution 
of  power  between  the  State  governments  and  the  general 
government,  was  to  alter  that  distribution  by  constitutional 
amendment.4  Then  came  a  grand  outburst,  rarely  equalled 
even  by  himself,  on  the  value  of  the  Union  and  the  indis 
soluble  connection  of  liberty  and  Union.5 

On  the  same  day  Hayne  made  his  third  argument.     He 

claimed  that  he  arose  simply  to  correct  some 
*    [    gross  errors   into  which  the  gentleman  from 

Massachusetts  had  fallen.  The  personal  points 
are  less  numerous  and  the  argument  more  logical  than  Web- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  73.  3  Ibid.,  p.  74. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  76.  *  Ibid.,  p.  79.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  79,  80. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          175 

ster's,  to  which  it  was  a  reply.  Much  of  the  same  ground 
was  covered  that  was  embraced  in  his  previous  speeches. 
Some  of  his  solemn  denials  must  be  recorded  as  a  part  of 
the  history  of  the  discussion.  "  I  said  nothing  that  could 
be  tortured  into  an  attack  upon  the  East."  Elsewhere  : 
"  The  gentleman  put  the  phrase,  *  accursed  tariff,'  into  my 
mouth." l  His  rejoinder  to  Webster's  remarks  on  McDuffie's 
position  on  internal  improvements  and  public  lands  is  per 
haps  insufficient.  He  said  that  if  Mr.  McDuffie  still  held 
these  opinions,  the  people  of  South  Carolina  did  not.2 
Hayne's  reply  to  Webster's  thrusts  upon  the  inconsistency 
of  South  Carolina  as  regarded  the  tariff  question  was  very 
ingenious.  A  great  mistake,  he  said,  prevailed  as  to  the 
tariff  of  1816.  That  was  not  a  bill  for  in-  Explains  the 
creasing,  but  one  for  reducing  duties.  During  tariff  of  1816 

07  .  °  °     and  South  Caro 

the  war  double  duties  had  been  resorted  to  for  Una's  part  in  its 
raising  the  revenue  necessary  for" its  prosecution.  enactment 
Manufactures  had  sprung  up  under  the  protection  inci 
dentally  afforded  by  the  restrictive  measures  and  the  war. 
On  the  restoration  of  peace  a  scale  of  duties  was  to  be  es 
tablished  adapted  to  the  situation  in  which  the  country  was 
by  that  event  placed.  All  agreed  that  the  duties  were  to 
be  reduced  gradually.  There  was  a  debt  of  $140,000,000 
or  $150,000,000.  Admonished  by  recent  experience,  a  navy 
was  to  be  built  and  an  extensive  system  of  fortifications  was 
to  be  commenced.  The  operation  of  a  sudden  reduction 
was  to  be  considered.  He  further  said  that  the  bill  was  re 
ported  by  the  lamented  Lowndes,  a  steady  opponent  of  the 
protecting  system ;  and  he  stated  its  provisions  to  confirm 
his  claim  that  it  was  a  revenue  restriction  measure.  The 
provisions  of  ensuing  tariffs  were  also  stated.  "  Suppose, 
sir,"  he  proceeded,  "  the  New  England  gentlemen  were  now 
to  join  the  South  in  going  back  to  a  tariff  for  revenue  and 
were  to  propose  to  us  gradually  to  reduce  all  of  the  existing 
duties,  so  that  they  should  come  down  in  two  or  three  years 
to  fifteen  or  twenty  per  cent.,  would  the  gentlemen  consider 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  83.  2  Ibidem. 


176          -4  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

us  as  sending  in  an  adhesion  to  the  American  system  by 
voting  for  such  a  reduction  ?  And  if  not,  how  can  they 
charge  the  supporters  of  the  tariff  of  1816  with  being  the 
fathers  of  that  system  ?" l  Expressing  dissent  from  the 
bonus  measure,  he  said  that  if  the  system  of  improvements 
had  been  conducted  on  the  principles  of  that  bill  much  of 
the  inequality  and  injustice  that  had  since  taken  place 
would  have  been  avoided.  But  he  was  by  no  means  dis 
posed  to  deny  that  a  considerable  change  on  the  subject  of 
internal  improvements  had  taken  place  in  the  Southern 
States,  and  particularly  South  Carolina,  since  the  measure 
was  first  broached.  As  a  new  question,  hardly  examined 
and  little  understood,  the  people  of  the  South  took  up  the 
belief  for  a  short  period  that  there  was  to  a  certain  extent, 
under  guards,  benefits  to  be  confirmed  by  the  system  con 
stitutionally  pursued.  But  before  time  had  been  allowed 
for  the  formation  of  fixed  opinions  the  evils  of  the  system 
were  fully  exposed,  including  most  alarming  innovations 
on  the  Constitution,  and  the  South  was  fully  satisfied  of  its 
injustice  and  inequality.2  As  to  his  own  vote,  he  observed, 
"  Sir,  I  know  that  more  than  one  gentleman  who  voted  for 
the  survey  bill  of  1824  expressly  stated  at  the  time  that 
they  did  not  intend  to  commit  themselves  on  the  general 
question ;  and  I  was  one  of  that  number."  Hayne  has  the 
almost  unquestioned  advantage  on  the  discussion  of  the 
tariff,  but  he  is  not  so  evidently  successful  either  on  the  sub 
ject  of  the  public  lands  or  that  of  the  internal  improvement 
system.  There  are  instances  in  this  part  of  the  debate,  as 
elsewhere,  of  Webster's  habit  of  twisting  another's  words 
to  save  himself  from  reproach.  Whenever  it  suited  his  pur 
pose,  he  invented  language  and  ascribed  it  to  his  opponent. 
More  than  half  of  Hayne's  final  argument  was  devoted  to 
an  examination  of  Webster's  views  on  Federal  powers.  His 
authorities,  as  before,  were  Madison  and  Jeffer 
son.  He,  too,  went  back  to  the  origin  of  the 
government,  which  he  found  in  the  independence  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  84.  2  Ibidem. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          177 

individual  States  before  the  existence  of  the  Constitution. 
He  quoted  Madison's  definition  of  the  nature  of  the  Con 
stitution, — "  a  compact  to  which  the  States  are  parties."  l 
Hayne  argued:  " Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  under 
such  a  system  the  Federal  government,  exercising  strictly 
delegated  powers,  can  have  no  right  to  act  beyond  the  pale  of 
its  authority,  and  that  all  such  acts  are  void.  A  State,  on 
the  contrary,  retaining  all  powers  not  expressly  given  away, 
may  lawfully  act  in  all  cases  where  she  has  not  voluntarily 
imposed  restrictions  on  herself.  Here,  then,  is  a.  case  of  com 
pact  between  sovereigns,  and  the  question  arises,  What  is 
the  remedy  for  a  clear  violation  of  its  express  terms  by  one 
of  the  parties  ?"  He  answers  by  a  quotation  from  Madison's 
Report  to  the  Virginia  Legislature,  page  20  :  "  That  where 
resort  can  be  had  to  no  common  superior,  the  parties  to  the 
compact  must  themselves  be  the  rightful  judge  whether  the 
bargain  has  been  pursued  or  violated."  He  challenged 
Webster  to  show  from  the  Constitution  the  grant  of  claimed 
power  in  the  Federal  government  to  decide  ultimately  and 
conclusively  the  extent  of  its  own  authority.2 

While  this  is  the  most  elaborate,  and  as  an  argument  of 
high  range  much  the  finest  portion  of  Hayne's  efforts  during 
this  discussion,  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  has 

.  A    blemish   on 

confused  the  question  not  a  little  and  given  a  great  argu- 
Webster  at  the  close  an  opportunity  to  dwell  ment 
more  than  the  point  is  worth  on  that  confusion.  He  had 
been  speaking  of  the  Constitution  as  a  compact  between 
States.  Here  he  made  the  compact  one  between  the  State 
governments  and  the  general  government, — that  is,  the  States 
as  organized, — thus  putting  the  creature  of  one  of  the  parties 
to  the  compact  in  place  of  one  of  the  original  parties  and  the 
creature  of  the  Constitution  in  place  of  the  others.  It  was 
a  blemish,  but  not  essentially  injurious  to  his  main  argument 
in  favor  of  ultimate  State  sovereignty.  He  was  not  able  to 
extricate  himself  wholly  from  the  popular  misapprehension 
and  nomenclature  and  from  the  terms  of  the  argument  he 


1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  86.  3  Ibidem. 

12 


178          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

was  endeavoring  to  refute.  Hayne  declared,  "  The  whole 
form  and  structure  of  the  Federal  government,  the  opinions 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  organization  of 
the  State  governments,  demonstrate  that  though  the  States 
have  surrendered  certain  specific  powers  they  have  not  sur 
rendered  their  sovereignty."  This  remark  was  explained 
as  relating  to  other  things  not  included  in  the  general  grant. 
The  doctrine  of  the  final  supremacy  of  the  Federal  govern 
ment,  he  said,  was  hased  on  the  notion  that  the  States  were 
inferior  to  the  mass  of  people  in  all  of  the  States.  The 
phrase,  "  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  referred  to 
the  people  as  citizens  of  the  several  States  and  not  to  the 
mass.1  This  was  the  sense  of  the  word  as  used  in  different 
parts  of  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  State  legislatures  and 
conventions  at  the  time  of  the  adoption.  As  to  Supreme 
Court  jurisdiction,  he  held  that  questions  of  sovereignty 
were  not  proper  subjects  of  judicial  investigation.  They 
were  much  too  large  and  of  too  delicate  a  nature  to  be 
brought  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  of  justice. 
Courts  were  the  mere  creatures  of  the  sovereign  power, 
designed  to  expound  and  carry  into  effect  its  sovereign 
will.  The  name  Supreme  Court,  he  contended,  had  relation 
Th  su  m  ^°  ^8  8UPremacy  over  the  inferior  courts  pro- 
court  of  the  vided  by  the  Constitution.  The  Supreme  Court 
[states,  j^  COgnizance  of  cases  arising  in  law  and 
equity  and  treaties.  As  with  regard  to  treaties,  the  Supreme 
Court  had  never  assumed  jurisdiction  over  questions  arising 
between  the  sovereigns  who  are  parties  to  them,  so  under 
the  Constitution  they  cannot  assume  jurisdiction  over  ques 
tions  arising  between  the  individual  States  and  the  United 
States.  In  the  case  before  us,  he  insisted,  there  can  be  no 
pretence  that  the  Supreme  Courts  have  been  specially  con 
stituted  umpires.  Unfit  for  the  high  decisions  named,  much 
more  are  they  disqualified  for  the  umpirage  between  States 
and  United  States,  because  the  court  is  created  by,  and  in 
deed  is  one  of,  the  departments  of  the  Federal  government.2 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  86. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  88.     In  strictness  this  statement  is  not  correct.     The 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          179 

If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  he  said,  could 
take  cognizance  of  such  a  question,  so  could  the  Supreme 
Courts  of  the  States.  But  to  show  that  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  had  no  such  power  he  contended  that 
from  the  control  of  the  Federal  government  over  the  sub 
jects  of  taxation  and  appropriation  the  Constitution  could 
be  violated  so  that  it  would  be  beyond  the  power  of  the 
judiciary.  The  tariff  and  internal  improvements  were  cited 
as  instances.  His  argument  then  advanced  to  the  postulate 
that  if  the  Supreme  Court  had  no  such  power 
of  umpirage,  the  Congress  could  not  have, 


Conceding  the  latter,  the  Constitution  was  a   supreme  court 

_       _  _  ___.  .    -.  nor    the    Con- 

dead  letter.  The  powers  of  Congress  were  re-  gress  is  umpire 
stricted  by  the  very  terms  of  the  Constitution.  ^*en  the 
When,  therefore,  Congress  exceeded  these 
terms,  their  acts  were  null  and  void.1  Such  acts  must  be  so 
declared  by  the  courts  in  cases  within  their  jurisdiction, 
and  may  be  pronounced  to  be  so  by  the  States  themselves 
in  cases  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  or  of 
sufficient  importance  to  justify  interference.2  He  main 
tained  that  the  right  of  States  to  judge  of  infractions  of 
the  Constitution  results  from  the  nature  of  the  compact  not 
only,  but  also  from  express  reservation  of  powers  not  dele 
gated.  He  then  considered  propositions  which  had  been 
suggested  for  remedy  of  the  ills  complained  of,  and  asserted 
the  futility  of  attempts  to  secure  amendments  to  the  Con 
stitution.  The  Constitution  did  not  admit  the  right  of  a 
minority  to  submit  such  amendments  to  the  people.  Con 
gress  itself,  the  violator  of  these  rights  of  the  , 

°  The  final  argu- 

States,  stood  as  a  bar  in  the  way  of  remedy.3    ment  of  state 
He  then  advanced  the  argument  which  was  the    interP°sition- 
final  resort  of  the  men  of  this  school.     He  said  that  the  ap 
prehension  of  the  interposition  by  the  States  would  pre- 

Supreme  Court  is  created  in  the  higher  sense  by  the  people  in  their 
ratification  of  the  Constitution.  The  Federal  government  under  our 
system  is  the  creature  of  the  Constitution,  which  is  the  creature  of  the 
people  of  the  States. 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  89.  J  Ibidem.  s  Ibidem. 


180          A  HISTORY  OF    THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

vent  the  Federal  government  from  attempting  to  act  beyond 
its  constitutional  powers.1  If  three  or  seven  (that  is,  a 
majority  of  a  quorum)  Supreme  Court  judges  might  render 
a  decision  nullifying  an  act  of  Congress,  rendering  an 
appeal  by  Congress  to  three-fourths  of  the  States  necessary, 
why  might  not  a  sovereign  State  be  entrusted  with  the  same 
power  ?  But  he  thought  that  it  should  never  be  exercised 
"  in  a  hasty  manner  or  on  doubtful  or  inferior  occasions," 
quoting  Mr.  Madison  again.  He  averred  that  then  the 
Federal  government  was  bound  so  far  to  acquiesce  in  the 
solemn  decision  of  the  State,  acting  in  its  sovereign  capacity, 
as  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  people  for  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.2  Certain  questions  were  answered  by  Hayne 
in  a  way  clearly  to  bring  out  the  difference  between  his 
contention  and  that  of  the  opposite  school.  "  Would  he 
justify  an  open  resistance  to  an  act  of  Congress  sanctioned 
by  the  courts  which  should  abolish  the  trial  by  jury,  or 
destroy  the  freedom  of  religion,  or  the  freedom  of  the  press  ? 
Yes,  sir,  he  would  advocate  resistance  in  such  case,  and  so 
would  I,  and  so  would  all  of  us.  But  such  resistance  would, 
according  to  his  doctrine,  be  revolution ;  it  would  be  rebel 
lion.  According  to  my  opinion,  it  would  be  just,  legal,  and 
constitutional  resistance." 3  Hayne  responded  cordially  to 
Webster's  eloquence  in  behalf  of  Union.  He  said  that 
because  South  Carolina  loved  the  Union  she  opposed  those 
usurpations  of  the  Federal  government  which  would  sooner 
or  later  tear  the  Union  into  fragments.  His  peroration  was 
not  equal  in  rhetorical  power  and  beauty  to  the  second  of 
Webster's,  but  was  superior  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  latter's 
third  and  concluding  speech.  "  The  gentleman,"  said  Hayne, 
"  is  for  marching  under  a  banner  studded  all  over  with  stars 
and  bearing  the  inscription,  <  Liberty  and  Union.'  I  had 
thought,  sir,  the  gentleman  would  have  borne  a  standard 
displaying  in  its  ample  folds  a  brilliant  sun,  extending  its 
golden  rays  from  the  centre  to  the  extremities,  in  the  bright 
ness  of  whose  beams  the  little  stars  hide  their  diminished 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  91.  a  Ibid.,  p.  91.  *  Ibid.,  p.  92. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          181 

heads.  Ours,  sir,  is  the  banner  of  the  Constitution.  The 
twenty-four  States  are  there  in  all  their  undiminished  lustre. 
On  it  is  inscribed,  i  Liberty  —  the  Constitution  —  Union.' 
We  offer  up  our  prayers  to  the  Father  of  all  mercies  that  it 
may  continue  to  wave,  for  ages  yet  to  come,  over  a  free,  a 
happy,  a  united  people."  l 

The  discussion  between  Webster  and  Hayne  was  con 
cluded  on  the  same  day  by  "  a  few  words"  from  the  former 
"  on  the  constitutional  argument  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  had  labored  to  recon- 


struct."     Webster  found  the  flaw  in  Hayne's    between   web- 

.  ,  ,   ,     .  ster  and  Hayne. 

argument  as  to  the  general  government  being 
a  party  to  the  compact.  Admitting,  he  said,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  the  position  that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact 
between  the  States,  the  inferences  Hayne  drew  therefrom 
were  warranted  by  no  just  reason.  That  Constitution  or 
that  compact  had  established  a  government.  He  then  re 
stated  rapidly  his  own  position.  The  laws  of  the  Congress- 
were  the  supreme  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  judicial  power 
of  the  United  States  extended  to  every  case  arising  under 
these  laws.  He  affected  contempt  for  Hayne's  argument, 
which  he  did  not  answer.  "  He  has  not  shown,"  said 
Webster,  "  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  Constitution  is  a 
compact  between  State  governments.  It  does  not  even  say 
that  it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the  several  States  ; 
but  it  pronounces  that  it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  the  aggregate."  In  these  remarks  Mr. 
Webster  did  himself  and  his  cause  great  injustice.  His 
concluding  statement  was  bold  and  dogmatic,  but  inconclu 
sive.  He  assumed  what  some  of  his  ablest  party  friends  re 
garded  as  untenable  ground  in  the  extract  last  made,  and 
when  he  denied  that  the  Constitution  was  a  compact  be-\ 
tween  the  people  of  the  several  States  he  put  his  own  word 
against  all  the  historical  evidence.  We  shall  see  that  he 
receded  from  this  position  in  1850.  Notwithstanding  the 


1  Webster's  fine  passages  in  this  debate  have  been  so  often  quoted, 
I  have  merely  indicated  where  some  of  them  occurred. 


182         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

weak  points  in  his  opponent's  argument,  it  must  be  said, 
upon  a  full  and  disinterested  view,  that  the  victory  was  not 
with  the  Massachusetts  Senator,  greater  lawyer  and  orator 
The  debate  as  a  an^  more  experienced  statesman  that  he  was. 
whole.  On  the  whole,  the  debate  sustained  the  State 

rights  party,  but  the  specious  reasoning  in  behalf  of  State 
interposition  in  the  Union  against  the  laws  of  the  Union 
would  not  have  stood  an  hour  in  a  discussion  with  an  orator 
of  the  early  school  of  State  rights  of  equal  ability  to  that 
of  the  South  Carolinian.1 

Benton  concluded  on  February  2  a  four  days'  speech, 

begun  on  the  20th  of  January,  but  which  was  postponed 

for  the  discussion  between  Hayne  and  Webster. 

February  2.  ,.,.,.  . 

Benton's  four  Benton  replied,  in  his  conclusion,  to  arguments 
days'  speech.  an(^  statements  made  by  Webster  in  the  previ 
ous  debate.  It  was  a  speech  of  masterly  power  both  in  its 
array  of  facts  and  in  its  use  of  them.  He  showed  from  the 
journals  that  Jefferson,  and  not  Dane,  was  the 
thor  of  the  or-  author  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.2  Eight  States 
dinanceofi?87.  on]v  were  present,  and  every  one  voted  for  it. 
Massachusetts  was  the  only  New  England  State  represented. 
Delaware,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia  voted  in  the  affirmative,  with  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Massachusetts.  His  manner  in  stating  this  fact 
and  other  historical  proofs  against  "Webster  was  exultant. 
He  always  had  a  greater  array  of  facts  than  his  contempo 
raries.  Benton  produced  documentary  evidence  that  the 
North  had  attempted  to  surrender  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  in  violation  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  required  nine  States,  not  simply  a  majority,  seven; 

1  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black  in  the  Milligan  case  took  the  same  position 
as  Hayne  on  the  Federal  government  being  a  party  to  the  constitutional 
compact.    Mr.  B.  J.  Sage,  in  "The  Republic  of  Republics,"  says  that 
the  real  fourteenth  party,  if  any,  was  the  association  called  the  United 
States.    His  contention  is  that  the  united  republics,  and  not  their  agency, 
were  to  be  the  government.     See  pages  283  and  311  of  his  remarkable 
work,  third  edition,  1878. 

2  The  whole  speech  as  consolidated  appears  in  the  Register  of  Debates 
for  this  Congress,  pp.  95-119. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          183 

that  the  South  had  resisted,  and  that  Forth  Carolina  had 
finally  defeated  the  movement.1  The  South,  he  showed 
from  the  Journals,  was  entitled  to  the  honor  of  having 
passed  the  Ordinance  of  1787.2  He  referred  to  the  suffer 
ings  of  the  young  West  in  the  Indian  wars,  the 

J  The   old  South 

generous  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  and  young 
States  in  Congress,  and  to  the  opposition  on  West 
the  part  of  the  Northern  to  all  measures  of  defence.  More 
than  fourteen  instances  of  this  opposition  to  Western  inter 
ests  were  stated.3  Benton  criticised  Webster's  magnificent 
outburst  on  the  Union.  "  The  Senator's  speech  on  the 
blessings  of  the  Union  brought  into  full  play  the  favorite 
Ciceronian  figure  of  amplification,  but  violated  the  rule  of 
propriety  which  required  the  fitness  of  things  to  be  consid 
ered, — the  time,  the  place,  the  subject,  and  the  audience. 
There  was  nothing  in  the  Senate  or  the  country  to  grace  its 
introduction.  The  time  for  it  was  when  the  five-striped 
banner  was  waving  over  the  land  of  the  North, — when  the 
Hartford  Convention  was  in  session,  amid  the  cry  of '  Peace 
ably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if  we  must,'  and  <  The  Negro  States 
by  themselves,  the  Potomac  and  the  Alleghanies  the  boun 
daries.'  "4  Benton  printed  in  parallel  columns  of  this  tre 
mendous  speech  the  votes  on  measures  in  the  Congress  of 
Western  importance  from  1816  to  1824,  and  from  1825  to 
the  date  of  the  discussion.  In  the  former 

.  New     England 

column  New  England  was  for  and  in  the  latter    and  the  west- 
against  the  measures.     He  charged  this  change    em  states> 
to  the  Presidential  election  of  1825,  and  said  that  on  East 
ern  measures  "  we  go  by  millions,"  while  with  difficulty  the 
West  obtained  "  a  few  miserable  thousands." 5 

One  of  Sprague's  arguments  in  reply  to  Benton  was  that 
because   some   New  England  votes  were  cast  for  certain 
measures  of  Western  interest,  as  the  acquisi- 
tic^ri  of  Louisiana,  they  could  not  have  passed 
without  her  aid,  and  she  should  therefore  have  the  credit 


1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  97-99.  a  Ibid.,  p.  99. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  102-105.  *  Ibid.,  p.  111.  *  Ibid.,  p.  116. 


184          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

of  having  secured  their  passage,  although  a  majority  of  her 
votes  were  cast  against  them.1  Notable  speeches  were  made 
Notable  during  the  debate  on  the  Foot  resolution  by 

speeches.  Eowan,  of  Kentucky;2   Barton,  of  Missouri;3 

Holmes,  of  Maine,  who  made  an  able  and  ingenious  reply 
to  Benton,  Rowan,  and  the  strict  State  rights  view ; 4 
Woodbury,  of  New  Hampshire,  who  contended  that  the 
general  government  were  the  servants  and  the  States  the  mas 
ters  ; 5  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,6  who  brought  an  array  of 
official  figures  on  the  land  question,  to  refute  the  position 
of  his  colleague,  and  discussed  all  of  the  other  topics  intro 
duced  in  this  wide-reaching  debate,  taking  on  State  rights 
more  moderate  ground  than  Hayne  had  done,  but  being  not 
less  explicit  than  he  had  been  in  declaring  for  the  right  of 
resistance ;  Grundy,  of  Tennessee,  who  denied  the  right  of 
the  Federal  government  to  use  force  upon  a  State  to  sustain 
its  own  adverse  determination  on  any  question ; 7  Clayton, 
on  March  2  and  4,  who  debated  in  a  long  and  very  lumi 
nous  speech  the  power  of  removals ;  replied  to  in  a  learned 
and  argumentative  effort  by  Livingston,  of  Louisiana,  on 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  122. 

2  Rowan's  view  (p.  129  et  seq.  of  Register  of  Debates)  is  presented  with 
great  lucidity,  force,  and  refinement.     It  is  the  radical  State  rights  view, 
in  which  the  doctrine  of  restraint  upon  State  sovereignty  is  denied. 
Each  State,  he  says,  exerts  its  plenary  sovereign  power  jointly  for  all 
the  legitimate  purposes  of  the  Union,  and  separately  for  all  the  purposes 
of  domiciliary  or  State  concerns.     Page  136.    He  says  that  an  appeal  by 
the  injured  State  would  be  as  unavailing  as  it  would  be  unwise.    A 
majority  of  States  have  passed  the  obnoxious  law,  and  the  State  cannot 
efficiently  make  the  appeal  (p.  142,  Register  of  Debates). 

3  February  9.    He  is  the  very  Thersites  of  debate.    Bitter  objurgation , 
especially  of  Benton,  his  colleague,  distinguishes  the  speech  on  this 
occasion  (p.  146). 

4  February  18,  19,  p.  160  of  Register  of  Debates. 

5  February  23,  24,  Register  of  Debates,  p.  179.     He  asserted  that  only 
moral  or  physical  force  can  be  used  against  any  process  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  the  latter  only  when  the  evil  is  extreme  and  palpable  (p. 
186). 

6  Register  of  Debates,  p.  196.    He  convicted  Benton  of  inconsistency 
on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements. 

7  Register  of  Debates,  p.  231. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          185 

March  9  and  15,  which,  however,  did  not  affect  seriously. 
the  positions  it  assailed.1  He  believed  in  the  Constitution  '; 
as  a  compact  and  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  arbiter  under  \ 
the  Constitution  "in  any  case  of  law  or  equity  between 
persons,  or  on  matters  of  whom  or  on  which  that  court  has 
jurisdiction,  even  if  such  decree  or  judgment  should,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  State,  be  unconstitutional."  But  he  held 
that  "  in  cases  in  which  a  law  of  the  United  States  may  in 
fringe  the  constitutional  right  of  a  State,  but  which  in  its 
operation  cannot  be  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court 
under  the  terms  of  the  jurisdiction  expressly  given  to  it 
over  particular  persons  or  matters,  that  court  is  not  created 
the  umpire  between  a  State  that  may  deem  itself  aggrieved 
and  the  general  government."  He  combated  Webster's 
theory  of  a  popular  government,  but  admitted  that  the 
government  as  established,  so  far  as  its  operations  extended, 
was  both  popular  and  federative.  Respecting  the  current 
talk  of  disunion,  he  said,  "  The  bond  cannot  be  unloosed 
until.it  is  wet  with  the  blood  of  brothers."2  Johnson,  of 
the  same  State,  denying  Benton's  right  to  speak  in  the  name 
of  the  "West,  affirmed  that  a  new  party  founded  on  State 
rights  was  arising  and  tending  inevitably  to  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  He  contended  against  the  right  of  veto  in 
individual  States.  The  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions 
were  merely  declaratory.  In  contradistinction  from  "Web 
ster,  he  averred  that  the  Federal  government  was  established  ( 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States,  but  for  great  national  ': 
purposes.3  The  subject  was  postponed  until  May 
20,  when  Bobbins,  of  Rhode  Island,  contended 
that  the  Constitution  was  paramount  to  the  State  constitu 
tions,  and  that  the  confederation  was  a  nation.  He  said 
that  the  master  states  of  the  world  would  be  lost  in  the 
blaze  of  the  Union  as  stars  were  lost  in  the  noontide  blaze 
of  the  sun.4  Indirectly  admitting  the  defeat  of  his  object, 
Foot  made  a  brief  defence  of  the  North  from  the  speeches 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  247  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  p.  270. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  292.  *Ibid.,  p.  438. 


186          A   HISTORY  OF    THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

of  Benton  and  Hayne,  and  also  treated  the  public  land  and 
official  removal  questions.1 

The  great  omnium  gatherum  debate  closed  on  the  21st 
of  May  with  speeches  by  Benton  and  Sprague.2    The  latter's 
remarks  were  brief  and  not  sufficient  to  turn 
e  advantae  which  the  other  had  won  on  the 


the  Foot  reso-  several  questions  that  had  been  discussed.  Ben- 
ton  reviewed  with  more  circumstantial  force 
than  before  the  official  history  of  the  adoption  of  the  Ordi 
nance  of  1787.  Jefferson  wrote  the  first  draft,  including 
the  anti-slavery  clause,  which  was  rejected  but  not  restored 
by  the  necessary  majority  when  it  had  reached  Congress. 
On  July  13,  when  the  ordinance  finally  passed,  only  one 
vote  —  that  of  Mr.  Yates,  of  New  York  —  was  recorded 
against  it.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  who  reported 
it  was  Mr.  Carrington,  of  Virginia  ;  of  the  five  members, 
two  were  Virginians  —  Carrington  and  Richard  Henry  Lee  — 
and  three  were  Southerners,  these  men  and  Kean,  of  South 
Carolina  ;  Dane,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Smith,  of  New  York, 
were  the  other  members  of  the  committee.  On  its  passage 
five  slave  States  and  three  anti-slave  States  were  present. 
Four  Northern  States  were  absent.  Only  one  New  Eng 
land  State  was  represented  in  the  vote.  Virginia  gave  the 
greatest  number  of  individual  votes  for  the  measure,  she 
who  had  furnished  the  first  and  the  last  chairman  of  the 
committee.3  Jefferson's  ordinance  was  adopted,  but  the 
clause  excluding  slavery  was  afterwards  stricken  out,  and 
was  not  restored  when  the  anti-slavery  States  had  a  majority 
present  in  Congress.  Benton  also  showed  that  the  anti- 
slavery  article,  with  the  addition  of  words  of  compact  be 
tween  the  original  and  the  new  States  to  come  into  the 

1  In  his  opinion,  the  President  had  not  the  power  of  removal  because 
he  did  not  possess  the  power,  of  appointment.     Eegister  of  Debates,  p. 
444. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  447-452. 

8  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  448  ;  Journal  Confederate  Congress,  p.  754. 
Benton'  s  meaning  was  that  Jefferson's  ordinance  of  1784  was  the  one 
which  was  finally  adopted. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1$30  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          187 

Union,  was  in  fact  adopted,  as  proposed  by  King,  and  not 
rejected,  as  had  been  stated  by  Webster.  This  was  in  March, 
1785.  That  compact  was  a  part  of  Jefferson's  ordinance  of 
1784,  and  the  other  was  the  rejected  article  offered  by  Jef 
ferson  in  that  year.  He  declared  that  Webster  had  en 
deavored  to  deprive  Jefferson  of  honors  in  order  to  place 
them  on  Dane's  brow.1 

1  Peter  Force,  in  Appendix  I.  of  the  St.  Clair  Papers,  in  giving  an 
account  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  says  that  Jefferson's  plan  for  a  tem 
porary  government  of  the  Western  Territory  was  adopted,  and  was  the 
law  of  the  land  until  repealed  in  1787.  The  whole  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  Northwest  Territory  is  discussed  by  Dunn  in  "  Indiana"  (Ameri 
can  Commonwealth  series,  Boston,  1888).  He  refers  to  the  claims  made 
by  or  in  behalf  of  Dane,  Jefferson,  Rufus  King,  St.  Clair,  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  Grayson,  Edward  Carrington,  and  Manasseh  Cutler.  On 
page  204,  he  says  that  "the  ordinance  as  adopted  was  an  entirely  dif 
ferent  instrument  from  any  that  had  before  been  considered  by  Con 
gress,  and  yet  it  included  the  greater  part  of  the  preceding  propositions." 
Benton  is  sustained  partly  by  what  he  next  states:  "The  identity  of 
phraseology  shows  that  whoever  drafted  it  had  the  older  reports  before 
him  at  the  time."  The  sixth  or  anti-slavery  clause  as  a  whole  did  not 
appear  in  the  ordinance  as  reported  and  printed.  Mr.  Dunn  says  that 
it  was  introduced  on  July  12,  and  appeared  on  the  printed  bill  as  an 
amendment  in  the  handwriting  of  Dane.  In  a  letter  to  Monroe,  dated 
August  8,  1787,  Grayson  says:  "The  clause  respecting  slavery  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Southern  members  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  to 
bacco  and  indigo  from  being  made  on  the  northwest  side  of  the  Ohio, 
as  well  as  several  other  political  reasons."  Existing  slavery  was  not 
abolished.  Its  legality  went  unchallenged  by  the  courts  in  Indiana. 
Page  237  of  Dunn's  "  Indiana"  for  the  last  statement.  Alexander  John 
ston,  in  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia  (New  York,  1895),  says  that  "the  fairest 
view  is  that  Jefferson's  report  (adopted  April  23,  1784)  was  the  frame 
work  on  which  the  ordinance  was  built." 

Monday,  March  1,  1784,  Congress  received  the  deed  of  cession  of 
Virginia  at  the  hands  of  the  delegation  of  that  State  authorized  to  exe 
cute  it, — namely,  Thomas  Jefferson,  Samuel  Hardy,  Arthur  Lee,  and 
James  Monroe.  Page  342  of  the  Journals  of  Congress,  1784.  Congress 
had  by  the  act  of  September  6,  1780,  recommended  a  liberal  cession  of 
a  portion  of  their  claims  to  the  several  States  having  claims  in  the  west 
ern  country.  Virginia  had,  accordingly,  January  2,  1781,  yielded  all 
right,  title,  and  claim  which  she  had  to  the  territory  northwest  of  the 
Ohio  River  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  Union.  The  deed  of  1784 
stipulated  for  the  States  to  be  admitted  as  "members  of  the  Federal 
Union,  having  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  indepen- 


188          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Pending  this  great  debate  in  the  Senate  the  country  was 
agitated  over  the  tariff  and  other  questions  which  had  di- 
Pendmg  the  de-  vided  both  parties  and  sections.  The  low- tariff 
bate-  newspapers  insisted  that  no  time  was  more 

suitable  than  that  for  revising  the  tariff.  But  some  of  the 
strongest  of  them  did  not  regard  the  condition  of  things 
as  presenting  a  case  of  last  resort.1  Some  of  the  Jackson 
papers  discussed  the  matter  of  his  renomination,  and  on 
the  31st  of  March  the  Democratic  members  of  the  legis 
lature  in  Pennsylvania  warmly  endorsed  his  administra 
tion,  and  nominated  him  for  a  second  term.  During  this 
year  five  of  the  six  New  England  States  voted  with  the 
administration.  The  Bank  and  the  Maysville  veto  were 
topics  of  great  interest  during  the  year.  In  New  York  the 
workingmen  formed  a  political  organization,  which  was 
called,  from  the  name  of  the  famous  agitator  of  English 
birth,  "  the  Fanny  Wright  party."  In  Febru- 

February.  111       I  ^  ^ 

ary,  to  go  back  a  short  time,  there  was  some 
gossip  concerning  the  intention  of  Mr.  Branch,  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  to  resign  his  seat  in  the  cabinet.2  This  was 
Breach  in  the  followed  by  rumors  of  a  breach  of  amity  be- 
administration.  tween  Vice-President  Calhoun  and  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  Secretary  of  State.  They  proceeded  from  the  op 
position  in  the  first  instance.  In  June  and  July  of  the  same 
year  Jackson  was  nominated  in  county  meetings  in  Ken- 
tacky  as  the  friend  of  the  tariff  and  of  internal  improve 
ments.  The  Anti-Masonic  Convention  met  in  November 
at  Philadelphia.  There  were  no  members  from  the  States 
south  of  Maryland.  In  our  brief  notice  of  the  general 
political  events  of  the  time  we  conclude  with  the  statement 
that  towards  the  end  of  1830  there  was  a  movement  for  a 

dence  as  the  other  States."  Protection  for  the  settlers  in  their  "  rights 
and  liberties,"  "their  possessions  and  titles  confirmed  to  them,"  was 
also  stipulated.  In  1786  Congress  asked  the  States  to  revise  their  acts 
of  cession. 

Reference  begins  at  page  11  of  the  Journals,  and  ends  at  page  835  of 
the  volume  for  1782-88,  for  cessions  of  territory  to  the  United  States. 

1  Richmond  Enquirer,  June,  1830. 

z  Ibid.,  February  4. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          189 

convention  of  the  National  Republicans  soon,  to  be  called 
Whigs.1 

In  South  Carolina  Dr.  Cooper  and  the  Mercury  continued 
the  opposition  to  the  tariff,  and  there  were  signs  that  the 
policy  of  internal  improvements  was  as  ob-  The  a  -tation 
noxious  there  as  protection.2  The  prominent  in  south  caro- 
men  of  the  State  made  frequently  addresses  at  Hna' 
public  meetings.  At  one  of  these  dinners,  given  in  Charles 
ton  on  the  1st  of  July,  there  were  nearly  six  hundred  per 
sons  present.  It  was  a  brilliant  assemblage  of  the  talent 
of  the  State.  The  portraits  of  Washington  and  public  meet- 
other  Revolutionary  heroes  and  statesmen  ap-  in^s- 
peared  on  the  walls,  and  there  was  a  display  of  United 
States  flags.  Among  the  designs  was  the  motto  taken  from 
Hayne's  celebrated  speech,  "  Liberty — the  Constitution — 
Union."  Opposing  nullification,  Colonel  William  Drayton, 
who  had  been  a  member  of  the  old  Federal 
party,  said,  "  A  crisis  might  arise  when  the 
bonds  of  the  Union  ought  to  be  broken.  The  right  of  the 
State  to  secede  from  the  Union  I  unqualifiedly  concede ; 
but  so  long  as  she  belongs  to  it,  if  she  be  not  bound  by  its 
laws,  the  monstrous  anomalies  would  exist  of  a  govern 
ment  whose  acts  were  not  obligatory  upon  its  citizens  and  a 
State  constituting  one  of  the  members  of  the  Union  whilst 
denying  the  authority  of  its  laws."  Disunion,  he  thought, 
was  "  incalculably  more  to  be  defended  than  the  existence 
of  the  law  which  we  condemn."  Hayne  spoke  at  length 
and  eloquently  in  favor  of  the  prevalent  doctrine  in  South 
Carolina  and  in  defence  of  the  State's  course,  and  compli 
mented  President  Jackson  for  the  Maysville  veto-message. 
Cheves  and  Hamilton  advocated  the  policy  of  consultation 
and  joint  action  by  the  Southern  States.3  At  the  dinner  to 
McDuffie  at  Edgefield,  on  the  4th  of  August,  the  Union, 
the  President,  and  the  Yice-President  were  toasted.  But 
the  second  toast  was  quite  bellicose, — "  South  Carolina : 

1  National  Intelligencer,  December  28. 

*  Winyaw  Intelligencer,  quoted  in  National  Intelligencer,  October  2. 

*  Charleston  Mercury,  July  3  ;  Niks' s  Register,  July  17. 


190         A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

those  of  her  sons,  who  feel  for  their  insulted  country  as 
freemen  ought,  would  rather  see  this  State  one  vast  mau 
soleum  for  the  honored  dead  than  to  see  her 

Bellicose  toasts.        -MI  i  t        •       ^  r> 

strike  her  colors  and  raise  the  recreant  voice  of 
submission."  At  one  of  the  dinners  near  Charleston  Gov 
ernor  Miller  gave  the  toast :  "  The  right  to  fight, — the  only 
principle  in  the  law  of  nations  worth  preserving."  Among 
the  gatherings  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  holding  a  convention 
was  one  held  at  Columbia  on  the  20th  of  September,  at 
which  there  was  an  attendance  from  all  portions  of  the 
State.  Only  eight  votes  were  cast  against  the  proposition. 
It  was  as  yet,  as  a  local  journal  of  the  time  stated,1  not  a 
question  of  nullification,  but  simply  of  convention  or  no 
convention.  Supreme  Judge  Johnston,  on  the  side  opposed 
to  measures  of  resistance,  in  a  printed  controversy  with 
Governor  Taylor,  doubted  if  there  was  a  man  in  South 
Carolina  who  agreed  with  him  (Johnston)  on  seven  of  his 
eight  points.2  Indeed,  there  was  practically  no  sentiment 
in  the  State  in  favor  of  even  a  moderate  theory  of  national 
consolidation.  The  issue  of  convention  or  no  convention 
was  presented  at  the  elections  for  members  of  the  legislature. 
The  city  of  Charleston  gave  a  majority  against  the  con 
vention  or  extreme  State  rights  party.  The  measure  re- 
jud  e  wniiam  (luire(^  a  two-thirds  vote,  and  did  not  prevail  at 
smith  on  nuiii-  that  time.3  In  a  strong  letter,  written  just  be- 
fication.  fore  tlie  e]ectjons?  senator  Smith  exposed  the 

irrationality  of  nullification.  He  was  defeated  for  re-election 
to  the  Senate  that  winter  on  account  of  his  position  on  the 
question  of  State  resistance. 

1  The  Columbia  Telescope. 

*  Drayton,  Smith,  and  about  all  of  the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  were 
State  rights  men,  and  most  of  them  believed  in  the  right  of  secession. 
Johnston  was  a  protectionist.  He  favored  giving  the  United  States 
Senate  the  right,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  to  decide  on  the  constitution 
ality  of  State  laws. 

3  The  vote  on  the  call  of  the  convention  was,  in  the  Senate  23  for, 
12  against ;  in  the  House,  60  for,  56  against.  The  South  Carolina  Legis 
lature  adjourned  on  the  19th  of  December.  Niles' s  Register,  January  8, 
1831. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND  OTHER  EVENTS.         191 

In  the  fall  elections  New  York  and  New  Jersey  supported 
the  Jackson  administration,  although  in  the  former  State  it 
would  appear  that  national  politics  did  not  The  state  eiec- 
enter  to  a  large  degree.  Clay,  who  had  been  tions- 
endorsed,  along  with  Union  and  the  American  system,  by 
the  Kentucky  State  convention,  carried  Ohio  except  the 
legislature.  As  early  as  this,  both  sides  were  getting  ready 
for  a  renewal  of  the  conflict  of  1824  and  1828. 

In  the  States  bordering  upon  South  Carolina  there  were 
movements,  official  and  otherwise,  more  or  less  sympathetic. 
The  message  of  Governor  Owen,  of  North  The  gtateg  ^ 
Carolina,  declared  that  the  tariff  called  for  a  dejing  on  south 
solemn  protest.1  A  common  treasury  without 
deriving  a  common  benefit  from  it  and  a  common  contribu 
tion  to  replenish  it  was  as  unjust  as  a  community  of  goods 
without  a  community  of  toil.  The  Georgia  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  asserted  that  the  tariff  and  internal  improve 
ment  legislation  were  unconstitutional.  In  Georgia,  as  in 
Virginia,  there  was  a  strong  State  rights  feeling  which  was 
bitterly  hostile  to  the  nullification  movement. 
One  of  the  newspapers  of  the  former  State, 
published  at  the  capital,  charged  that  the  nul-  nullification 
lifiers  were  once  latitudinarians ;  that  the  true 
State  rights  party  were  represented  by  Smith,  whom 
they  had  put  out  of  the  Senate.2  The  North  Carolina 
House  of  Commons  adopted  anti-nullification  resolutions 
by  a  vote  of  87  to  27,  and  unanimously  the  resolution  de 
claring  that  the  sentiment,  "  the  Union  must  be  preserved," 
was  one  challenging  approbation  and  promising  to  save  the 
Union  from  disunion  and  anarchy.3 

Early  in  the  year  1831  a  publication  which  was  to  have 
far-reaching  consequences  was  made  in  a  "Wash 
ington    newspaper.      Tt    was    extensively    re 
printed  and  was  the  subject  of  much  comment  throughout 


1  Raleigh  Star  ;  Richmond  Enquirer,  November  23. 

8  Milledgeville  Recorder,  quoted  by  National  Intelligencer,  August  3. 

8  Niks' 's  Register,  Februry  5,  1831. 


192          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  country.1     This  was  the  publication  of  all  the  letters 
bearing  on  the  Seminole  affair  and  the  position 

Letters   on  the        p  ,  r  ,          ,  .  ..,  p  ~  . 

0*  Monroe  s  cabinet  with  reference  to  General 


Jackson  and  Jackson's  attitude  and  action  on  the  occasion. 
Jackson  had  always  thought  that  Calhoun  had 
approved  of  his  conduct.  The  correspondence,  which  was 
precipitated  by  the  friends  of  Crawford  and  Van  Buren, 
who  were  enemies  of  Calhoun,  showed  the  contrary.  The 
friends  of  the  latter  asserted  that  he  did  not  desire  a  breach 
with  General  Jackson,  but  that  he  would  not  shirk  respon 
sibility.  The  whole  controversy  seems  to  have  originated 
causes  of  the  from  the  ambition  of  Van  Buren  and  Calhoun 
controversy.  to  succeed  Jackson,  if  he  should  riot  be  a  candi 
date  for  re-election  to  the  Presidency,  and  the  disposition 
of  the  Clay  press  to  foment  discord  in  the  other  party.  But 
important  factors  in  the  affair  were  the  grudge  that  existed 
between  Crawford  and  Calhoun  and  the  suspicions  of  Jack 
son.  If  he  had  not  been  before  inclined  to  support  Van 
Buren,  the  publication  of  the  correspondence  induced  him  to 
decide  upon  that  course.  Meantime,  however,  matters  were 
shaping  themselves  for  the  renomination  of  the  President. 

The  excitement  in  Washington  at  the  close  of  the  session 
was  unprecedented.2  The  Calhoun-  Crawford-  Jackson  cor- 
Excitement  respondence  only  added  to  the  confusion  of 
and  confusion,  party  warfare,  in  which  its  effect  was  for  a 
time  to  change  the  relations  of  men  to  parties.  The  Presi 
dent  refused  to  appoint  a  nullifier  to  an  office  in  Charleston, 
although  the  applicant  was  backed  by  others  who  were  not 
of  that  party.3  A  dinner  was  given  to  Webster,  during  the 
latter  part  of  March,  in  honor  of  his  efforts  in  the  debate 
with  Hayne  and  Benton;  Chancellor  Kent  presided,  and 
Webster  made  a  great  speech.  At  a  later  day  nullification 
was  toasted  in  Charleston,  at  a  dinner  to  McDuffie,  as  "  the 
only  rightful  remedy  of  an  injured  State." 

1  United  States  Telegraph,  February  and  March  ;  also  Globe  and  National 
Intelligencer.     It  was  reprinted  in  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xl.,  March  5-19, 
April  2. 

2  Niles's  Register,  March  5.  *  Ibid.,  March  12. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          193 

Meanwhile  several  members  of  the  cabinet  had  resigned. 
The  circumstances  of  their  resignation  and  the  correspond 
ence  that  ensued  provoked  an  angry  state  of  RuptUre  of  the 
public  feeling  which  continued  for  several  cabinet. 
months.  The  members  who  retired  were  known  as  Cal- 
houn  men;  except  Van  Buren,  Secretary  of  State,  who  was 
to  give  way  for  the  temporary  good  of  his  party  and  as  a 
decent  pretext  for  the  pressure  which  swept  Ingham,  Ber- 
rien,  and  Branch  from  their  places  at  the  head  of,  respec 
tively,  the  offices  of  the  Interior,  the  Attorney-General,  and 
the  Navy.  The  letters  revealed  a  singular  state  of  social 
relations,  and  the  President's  ostensible  reason 


for  what  he  did,  if  it  had  been  his  sole  ground,  arnedaso^ 


would  have  done  credit  to  his  gallantry.  But  °f  the 
that  he  made  the  refusal  of  some  officers  of  the 
government  to  receive  the  wife  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
General  Eaton,  at  their  official  receptions,  an  excuse  for 
getting  rid  of  a  cabinet  which  was  not  wholly  in  sympathy 
with  his  political  objects  became  apparent,  although  the 
real  motive  was  not  at  first  suspected.  This  episode  is  not 
one  of  those  passages  in  our  history  that  suffuse  the  face 
with  pride.1 

In  January,  1831,  "William  Lloyd  Garrison  established 
the  Liberator,  with  the  programme  of  "  imme-  Garrison's  ub- 
diate  and  unconditional  emancipation."  erator- 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  so  far  taken  no  direct  part  in  the  South 
Carolina  proceedings.  Carefully  observing  the  proprieties, 
he,  as  Yice-President  of  the  United  States,  Caihoun's  ex- 
would  not  make  himself  a  party  to  a  move-  position. 
ment  the  effect  of  which  might  be  to  sunder  the  Union. 
Indeed,  almost  up  to  the  moment  of  his  "  Exposition,"  printed 
in  a  village  newspaper,  the  Pendleton  (South  Carolina)  Mes 
senger,  it  had  been  asserted  by  impartial  persons  and  news 
papers  that  he  was  not  an  advocate  of  nullification.2  This 
paper  was  a  singularly  acute,  metaphysical,  original,  but 

1  Globe,  Telegraph,  National  Intelligencer,  and  Niles's  Register,  during  the 
summer  of  1831. 

1  It  was  denied  that  he  was  a  nullifier  in  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xl.  p.  49. 

13 


194          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

essentially  unsound  exposition  of  constitutional  principles. 
"What  he  called  "  the  high  controlling  power"  was  in  the 
will  of  "  a  majority  compounded  of  a  majority  of  the  States 
taken  as  corporate  bodies,  and  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
the  States  estimated  in  federal  numbers."  The  Supreme 
Court  was  not  the  final  arbiter.  The  appeal  was  to  three- 
fourths  of  the  States.  He  contended  that  the  Virginia 
Report  had  placed  the  matter  beyond  controversy.  u  The 
States  had  no  right  to  this  high  power  of  interposition,  .  .  . 
except  in  cases  of  dangerous  infractions  of  the  Constitution, 
and  then  only  in  the  last  resort,  when  all  reasonable  hope 
of  relief  from  the  ordinary  action  of  the  government  had 
failed;  when,  if  the  right  to  interpose  did  not  exist,  the 
alternative  would  be  submission  and  oppression  on  one 
side,  or  resistance  by  force  on  the  other."  Calhoun  re 
marked  the  antagonism  of  the  sections  on  the  tariff,  and 
declared  that  a  reduction  of  the  duties  to  a  fair  system  of 
revenue  was  necessary.  The  proposed  division  of  the  sur 
plus  in  the  treasury  among  the  States  was  denounced  as 
"  the  most  dangerous,  unconstitutional,  and  absurd  propo 
sition  ever  devised  by  any  government."  The  presentation 
of  the  questions  at  issue  was  in  very  temperate  and  elevated 
language.1 

Meetings  were  held  throughout  South  Carolina,  some  in 

advocacy  of  nullification,  others  in  opposition.     Ex- Senator 

Smith  was  present  at  Spartanbursr,  where  Jack- 

Union  meetings  r       .  ,    .  .  ~ 

in  south  caro-  son  was  complimented  in  resolutions  and  Cal 
houn,  in  effect,  discountenanced.  The  Union 
party  viewed  nullification  as  a  highly  irregular  and  uncon 
stitutional  measure,  leading  to  civil  war,  disunion,  or  dis 
graceful  retreat.2 

1  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  school  drew  wrong  inferences  from  the  Madison 
report.     That  document  insisted  only  upon  the  right  of  protest,  and  pos 
sibly  in  the  last  resort  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.     It  claimed  the 
right  to  state  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  but  did  not  provide  for 
nullification  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.     There  must  be  an  eternal 
difference  between  the  final  appeal  from  the  Union  and  the  right  in  the 
Union  to  defy  the  majority. 

2  At  St.  John's,  Colleton,  August  9. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          195 

On  the  30th  of  September  what  was  called  the  free-trade 
convention  met  in  Philadelphia.  Fifteen  States  were  rep 
resented.  Among  the  delegates  were  Gallatin, 
P.  P.  Barbour,  Chancellor  Harper,  Cheves, 
Iredell,  and  Berrien.  Against  Gallatin's  opin-  at 
ion  a  declaration  was  adopted,  by  a  vote  of  one 
hundred  and  forty- nine  to  twenty- nine,  setting  forth  that 
the  tariff  was  unconstitutional.1  A  convention  of  the 
friends  of  the  tariff  was  held  in  New  York  on 
the  26th  of  October.  It  was  a  larger  body  %£*££«*. 
than  the  other.  One  of  the  utterances  of  the  ventioninNew 
tariff  convention  was  the  following :  "  Congress 
cannot  look  with  one  glance  to  revenue  and  the  other  to 
protection."  One  of  the  special  benefits  of  the  protective 
tariff  was  declared  to  be  the  lowering  of  prices  abroad, 
claimed  to  be  the  result  of  American  competition.  "With 
strange  fatuity  or  perversity  it  was  denied  that  the  distress 
at  the  South  had  been  increased  by  the  passage  of  the  tariff 
of  1828.  The  address,  which  was  very  long,  closed  with  a 
eulogy  of  the  Union  and  an  exhortation  to  support  it.2 

Connected  with  these  events  were  the  general  party  move 
ments  of  the  time.  The  Anti-Masons  nominated  William 
"Wirt,  of  Virginia,  and  Amos  Elmaker,  of  Penn-  Party  move_ 
sylvania,  for  President  and  Vice-President.  mente- 
At  the  end  of  the  year,  the  National  Eepublican  convention 
nominated  Clay  and  Sergeant  for  its  Presidential  ticket. 
Jackson  was  not  nominated  until  the  following  spring. 

In  a  previous  chapter  precautions  against  a  servile  in 
surrection  in  certain  localities  of  the  Southern  States  were 
spoken  of.  Such  safeguards  had  not,  up  to  the  servile  insur- 
event  about  to  be  recorded,  been  taken  in  Vir-  rection- 
ginia.  The  white  people  of  that  commonwealth  sustained 
somewhat  different  relations  with  their  servants  from  those 

1  Niks' s  Register,  October  8, 15. 

2  Ibid.,  November  12,  address  on  p.  204.     One  of  the  speakers  said  that 
the  tariff  was  then  almost  a  nullity ;  that  the  manufacturer,  owing  to 
frauds  on  the  revenue,  did  not  enjoy  more  than  forty  or  fifty  per  cent. — 
Niters  Register,  p.  203. 


196          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

sustained  by  the  slave-holders  of  the  far  South  with  theirs. 
In  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina  there  was  felt 
almost  perfect  security  from  that  source  of  danger,  and  while 
the  intelligent  and  controlling  class  apprehended  trouble 
to  come  from  the  institution  it  was  thought  that  it  would 
be  purely  political  and  would  not  seriously — at  least  for  a 
long  while — affect  domestic  peace  and  the  personal  safety  of 
the  planters  and  their  families.  "When,  therefore,  the  news 
was  spread  over  the  South  in  the  latter  part  of 
August  that  an  insurrection  of  the  slaves  had 
occurred  in  Southampton  County,  Virginia,  and  that  a  large 
number  of  lives  had  been  sacrificed,  the  greatest  conster- 
The  southamp-  nation  prevailed.1  The  excitement  among  the 
ton  massacre.  slaves  was  produced  by  the  negro  preachers,  led 
by  one  of  them,  named  !Nat  Turner.  The  first  family  mur 
dered  bore  the  name  of  Travers.  The  number  of  the  in 
surgents  was  not  at  any  time  large,  but  some  of  them  were 
mounted  and  armed,  and  thus  eluded  the  efforts  which 
were  promptly  made  by  the  State,  authorities  to  capture 
them  and  suppress  the  revolt.  They  attempted  to  reach  the 
Dismal  Swamp,  not  many  miles  distant,  where  they  would 
have  been  able  to  go  into  secure  hiding  and  depredate  on  the 
neighboring  farms  until  some  great  conflagration  in  a  dry 
summer  should  drive  them  from  their  fastness.  Several  en 
counters  took  place  between  the  outlaws  and 

The  outlaws 

overpowered       the  militia.     At  length,  on  the  29th  of  August, 
the  insurrection  was  at  an  end.     But  the  leader 
was  not  caught  until  the  30th  of  October.     He  was  found 
in  a  cave  not  far  from  the  scene  of  the  horrors.     The  in 
surgents  were  all  caught,  tried,  convicted,  sentenced,  and 
executed  by  due  process  of  law.     Their  offences  had  been 
the  most  heinous  known  to  the  times.     In  that  part  of  the 
South  the  slaves  were  kindly  treated,  almost 

A    CRV1S£16S8  TO- 

beiiion.       its   without   exception;  the  leaders  in  the  revolt 

were  the  most  favored  and  most  intelligent; 

they  appeared  to  have  been  most  cruel  to  those  masters  and 

1  The  first  rumors  were  gross  exaggerations.     It  was  said  that  from 
three  hundred  to  eight  hundred  negroes  were  under  arms. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.         197 

their  families  who  had  been  most  indulgent ;  and,  alto 
gether,  it  was  a  causeless  rebellion,  atrocious  in  its  outbreak 
and  progress  and  happy  in  its  speedy  suppression  by  the 
firm  hand  of  official  power.1 

The  Southampton  insurrection  left  an  uneasy  feeling  in 
lower  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  which  caused  a  tight 
ening  of  the  lines  on  the  part  of  the  masters. 
Martial  law  was  proclaimed  at  Wilmington  and    ^vii-giniT  and 
other  places  in  Eastern  North  Carolina,  and  the    North  Carolina. 

_.  Executions. 

militia  were  called  out.  Free  negroes  were  ar 
rested.  Several  blacks  were  tried  for  conspiracy  to  commit 
wholesale  murder,  and  executions  took  place  in  several 
States.2  Many  white  women  and  children  fled  to  the 
swamps.  It  was  a  considerable  time  before  the  terror 
abated,  and  there  was  never  again  in  the  South  a  feeling 
of  security.  Some  notion  of  the  general  unrest  may  be 
derived  from  the  recommendations  of  the  Governor  of  Vir 
ginia  in  his  annual  message  to  the  legislature.  He  advised 

1  For  general  facts  see  Niks' s  Register,  September-November,  in 
clusive  ;  also  Governor  Floyd's  message,  Niles's  Register,  for  January, 
p.  350.  The  governor  says  that  sixty-one  persons  were  massacred, 
mostly  women  and  children.  He  also  states  that  the  number  of  "the 
banditti  of  slaves" — his  expression, — "never  exceeded  seventy  in 
number." 

The  following  description  of  "  General"  Nat  Turner  was  given  by 
his  owner,  P.  R.  Beverley,  of  Alexandria,  Virginia:  "A  black  man,  six 
feet  two  inches  high,  or  thereabouts,  not  corpulent,  but  very  muscular  ; 
has,  or  had  eighteen  months  ago  when  he  ran  off,  a  wart  on  the  upper 
lid  of  one  of  his  eyes,  about  the  size  of  a  large  duck-shot,  and  a  scar,  not 
very  large,  on  his  forehead,"  etc.  Further,  he  is  said  to  have  been 
expert  as  a  sein-hauler  and  plantation  hand,  had  a  "smooth  tongue," 
large  feet  and  hands,  thin,  but  strong  frame  ;  he  often  showed  a  specious 
smile  ;  he  was  about  forty  years  of  age.  Mr.  Beverley  says  that  Nat  ran 
off  from  Old  Point,  where  he  was  at  work,  with  thirty  dollars  of  his 
master's  money.  At  Old  Point  he  become  a  Baptist  preacher,  and 
claimed  to  have  been  inspired. — Clipping  from  Baltimore  Gazette  in 
Washington  Globe,  September  23,  1831.  A  correspondent  of  the  Rich 
mond  Whig,  who  was  present  at  the  trial,  says  that  Nat  Turner  only  pre 
tended  to  be  a  Baptist  minister. 

1  Washington  Globe,  September  20 ;  National  Intelligencer,  September 
26  ;  Niles's  Register,  November  19,  December  10,  1831 ;  also  for  brief 
mention  several  State  histories,  as  Moore's  North  Carolina. 


198          A  HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

that  slaves  should  be  confined  to  the  plantations  of  their 
masters,  and  recommended  an  appropriation  for  the  re 
moval  of  free  persons  of  color. 

But  while  the  insurrection  excited  such  feelings  as  these 
in   all  the   slave   States   another   spirit   seemed  dominant 

among  the  thoughtful  public  men  of  Virginia. 

In  December  of 'the  session  of  1831-32  the  sub- 
in  the  Virginia  jects  of  emancipation  and  colonization  arose  in 

the  legislature.  The  debate  lasted  thirteen 
days.  The  decision  was  against  the  expediency  of  present 
action,  although  "  the  great  evils  arising  from  the  condition 
of  the  colored  population"  were  admitted.  In  the  reso 
lutions  adopted  sympathy  for  the  scheme  of  colonization 
was  extended  in  accordance  with  public  sentiment.  The 
Richmond  Enquirer  and  Whig  and  other  newspapers  of  the 
State  urged  the  enactment  of  a  law  of  gradual  emancipa 
tion.  The  Enquirer,  then  one  of  the  most  influential  jour 
nals  of  the  country,  held  this  language :  "  Are  we  forever 
to  suffer  the  greatest  evil  which  can  scourge  our  land  not 
only  to  remain,  but  to  increase  in  its  dimensions?  .  .  . 
Means  sure,  but  gradual,  systematic  but  discreet,  ought  to 
be  adopted  for  reducing  the  mass  of  evil  which  is  pressing 
upon  the  South,  and  will  still  more  press  upon  her  the 
longer  it  is  put  off."  *  Some  of  the  leading  advocates  of 
emancipation  were  Messrs.  Moore,  Thomas  J.  Randolph, 
Charles  J.  Faulkner,  Rives,  and  Boiling ;  of  the  opposition, 
Messrs.  Leigh,  Brown,  and  Gholson.  Considerable  elo 
quence  and  acumen  were  displayed  on  both  sides  of  the  dis 
cussion.  The  emancipationists  insisted  that  the  origin  of 
slavery  was  in  fraud  and  violence ;  that  it  was  against  moral 
sentiment,  civic  policy,  and  sound  industrial  principles ;  that 
it  had  degraded  Virginia  from  a  first  to  a  third  rate  com 
monwealth  ;  that  from  the  increase  of  the  black  population 
there  was  danger  of  servile  insurrection,  and  the  extermi 
nation  of  many  of  the  white  people.  These  arguments 
were  met  by  a  qualified  defence  of  slavery  as  an  existing 

1  Enquirer,  January  7,  1832. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          199 

institution.1  This  was  the  last  great  appearance  of  the 
anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  South.  The  lines  were  too 
tightly  drawn  henceforth  for  much  if  anything  to  be  mani 
fest  of  that  historic  abolitionism  which  judged  of  slavery 
by  a  practical  knowledge  of  its  ills  and  not  by  a  sentiment 
which  might  have  been  tinctured  by  political  jealousy. 

What   was   known   as   the   Jackson   party,   now   called 
formally   the   Democratic   party,   nominated   Jackson  and 
Van  Buren  for  President  and  Vice-President,  at 
Baltimore,  on  the  22d  of  May,  1832.     The  latter    : 
did  not  give  satisfaction  to  some  of  the  Southern  Demo 
crats   who   supported   General    Jackson.     Ex- 

o>  T-»       T-^      T-»      i  r>     -r-r-       •    •  The  first  nation- 

fepeaker  P.  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  was  ai  convention 
brought  out  by  various  conventions  and  legis-  of  the  Demo- 

&  *  crats.    Dissatis- 

lative  caucuses  as  the  candidate  of  the  party    faction  in  the 
for  the  Vice-Presidency.     Mr.  Barbour  with-    Bouth 
drew  subsequently  from  the  contest,  on  the  ground  that  his 
candidature  might  imperil  Jackson's  election.2 

Events  in  South  Carolina  were  shaping  for  a  more  definite 
expression  of  the  ultimate  feeling  of  the  majority.     In  the 
South  generally  the  "  Exposition"  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  had  been  received  as  a  frank,  able,  and  un-    nonsense      of 
popular  statement  of  views.    It  was  treated  with    nullification- 
respect,  and  no  suspicion  of  wrong  motives  was  entertained.3 
But  the  heresy  and  nonsense  of  nullification  was  the  sub 
ject   of  many  speeches   and   editorials.4     The 
South   Carolina  delegation   in   Congress   pub- 
lished  an  address  to  the  people  of  that  State    sional 
on  the  13th  of  July,  1832.5     The  burden  of  the 
tariff,  they  said,  rested  on  the  anti-tariff  States.     The  toasts 

1  Richmond  Enquirer;    also  Daniel  R.    Goodloe's   "Southern    Plat 
form,"  pp.  43-54. 

2  October  24. 

3  Extracts  in  National  Intelligencer,  August  24,  1831,  from  various  news 
papers. 

*  Some  of  the  journals  treated  it  seriously,  under  the  caption  of  the 
"Crisis." 

5  Senators  Hayne  and  Miller  and  Representatives  McDuffie,  Davis,  Fel- 
der,  Griffin,  Nuckolls,  and  Barnwell.  Niks' s  Register,  August  4,  p.  414. 


200  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

and  speech-phrases,  which,  the  year  before,  had  been  usually 
pacific,  were  now  bellicose.  Such  expressions  as  "  baptism 
in  blood,"  "in  the  field  of  battle,"  etc.,  were  of  frequent 
use.  Even  the  Fourth  of  July  celebrations  partook  of  this 
character  of  hostility.1  In  the  fall  of  this  year, 
nullification  was  rampant.  H.  L.  Pinckney, 
editor  of  the  Mercury,  was  elected  mayor  of  Charleston 
amidst  violent  excitement.  In  one  of  his  published  letters 
Calhoun  said  that  in  a  few  years  the  South  Carolina  doctrine 
would  be  the  established  political  faith  of  the  country.  In 
his  opinion  the  danger  was  not  disunion,  but  loss  of  liberty. 
The  nullification  paper  at  the  State  capital  observed :  "  The 
union  of  these  States  is  now  virtually  dissolved, — dissolved 
in  the  only  place  where  it  ever  can  be  permanent,  viz. :  in 
the  hearts  of  the  people." 2 

But  Union  meetings  were  held  in  South  Carolina  and 
other  Southern  States.  At  the  convention  of  that  party  in 
Columbia  an  address  to  the  people  was  adopted,  which  de 
clared  that  the  theory  of  nullification  falsified  the  history  of 
the  country.  But  the  convention  also  averred  that  there 
was  no  tariff  party  in  South  Carolina.  It  was  proposed  to 
hold  a  convention  of  the  Southern  States  for  "  deliberation 
as  well  on  the  infraction  of  their  rights  as  on  the  mode  and 
measure  of  redress."  There  were  hints  of  "  interposition" 
by  combined  action.  It  is  very  evident  that  many,  if  not 
most,  of  the  Union  party,  so-called,  in  South  Carolina  and 
Virginia,  were  secessionists  in  the  last  resort.  The  resolu 
tions  adopted  by  this  convention  expressed  a  desire  to  unite 
with  the  other  party  "  on  any  ground  which  promises  a  re 
dress  of  our  grievances  without  involving  a  violation  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States;"  pledged  the  memb,ers 
of  the  convention  to  abide  by  the  action  of  a  Southern  con 
vention,  and  arranged  for  a  committee  of  correspondence. 
The  venerable  ex-Governor  Thomas  Taylor  presided.3 


1  Niks' s  Register,  August  4,  p.  387. 

2  Columbia  Telescope,  quoted  in  Nttes,  p.  77, 

3  Ibid.,  p.  87. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.         201 

An  allusion  to  a  possible  combination  of  seven  Southern 
States  was  made  by  the  display  at  Oglethorpe,  Georgia,  of  a 
seven-striped  banner.  P.  P.  Barbour,  in  reply  to  an  invita 
tion  to  address  a  meeting  in  North  Carolina  of  the  political 
friends  of  General  Jackson,  wrote  that  "  the  only  rightful 
remedy  (in  such  cases  as  South  Carolina  would  provide 
nullification  for)  was  that  of  secession  ...  to  be  applied 
only  in  cases  of  hopeless  extremity." l 

We  should  return  at  this  point  to  the  course  of  tariff 
legislation.  On  the  5th  of  February,  1830,  McDuffie  re 
ported  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  a 
bill  which  contained  among  its  provisions  the 
following :  Duties  to  be  levied  in  lieu  of  those  then  im 
posed,  from  and  after  June  30,  1830,  on  iron  in  bolts  and 
bars,  ninety  cents  per  hundred  and  twelve  pounds ;  in  pigs 
for  same  weight,  fifty  cents ;  hemp  and  flax,  unmanufactured, 
thirty-five  dollars  per  ton ;  cotton  bagging,  three  and  three- 
fourths  cents  per  square  yard ;  unmanufactured  wool,  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  ad  valorem  until  June  30,  1831,  and  five  per 
cent,  every  year  until  the  duty  should  be  reduced  to  fifteen 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  provided  that  all  wool,  the  actual  value 
of  which  at  the  place  whence  imported  shall  not  exceed 
ten  cents  per  pound,  shall  pay  a  duty  of  fifteen  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  and  no  more,  from  after  the  30th  of  June,  1830; 
on  all  woollen  or  part  woollen  manufactures,  except  worsted 
manufactures  and  blankets,  which  were  to  pay  twenty-five 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  a  duty  of  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent,  ad  valorem;  cotton  or  part  cotton  manufactures, 
twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  except  nankeens  imported 
directly  from  China ;  salt,  ten  cents  per  bushel  of  fifty-six 
pounds;  molasses,  four  cents  the  gallon.2  Objection  was 
raised  by  a  Pennsylvania  member  to  a  discussion  of  the 
bill.  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  on  the  question 
of  rejection.  Cambreleng  and  Barbour  desired  a  fair 
consideration  of  the  question  presented  in  the  bill,  and 
Strong,  of  New  York,  asked  for  a  postponement.  On  the 

1  Nties,  October  20.  2  Kegister  of  Debates,  p.  555. 


202  A    HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

8th  of  February  Strong's  motion  to  table  the  Treasure  pre 
vailed  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  seven  to  seventy-nine.1 
The  debate  on  March  11  was  on  Folk's  amendment  to  An 
derson's  resolution  instructing  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  a  draw 
back  of  nine  cents  per  gallon  on  rum  distilled  in  this  country 
from  foreign  molasses  when  such  rum  was  exported.  The 
amendment  allowed  a  drawback  of  four  and  one-half  cents 
per  square  yard  on  foreign  cotton  bagging  exported  either 
in  the  original  packages  or  around  cotton  bales.2  The  South 
ern  members  contended  that  as  the  greater  part  of  the  bag 
ging  was  still  imported,  Kentucky  did  not  ^  equire  the  duty. 
There  was  no  duty  before  1824,  the  duty  of  which  year  had 
been  increased  in  1828  from  three  and  three-fourths  cents 
to  five  cents  per  square  yard.  Some  of  the  Southern  speak 
ers  repelled  the  charge  that  the  South  was  against  all  tariff 
duties  or  favored  disunion  if  the  present  duties  were  not  re 
duced.3  Finally,  on  March  16,  the  resolution  and  proposed 
amendments  by  Polk  and  Gorham  were  laid  on  the  table.4 

Mallary  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  a 
bill  the  purpose  of  which  was  declared  to  be  to  enforce  the 
law  of  1828.  It  concerned  the  collection  of  the  duties,  and 
was  for  the  purpose,  as  alleged,  to  prevent  fraudulent  in 
voices.5  A  bill  reducing  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee  passed, 
after  failure  to  incorporate  amendments  to  reduce  the  salt 
duty.  The  duties  were  made  specific  by  the  adoption  of 
McDuifie's  amendment.6 

Debate  was  resumed  on  the  26th  of  April  upon  the  bill 

reported   by  Mr.  McDuifie.      He   offered   and 

discussed  a  proposition  to  strike  out  all  after 

the  first  section.      About  the  same  time  the  House  con- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  556.  a  Ibid.,  pp.  605-612. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  615-617. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  624.     Gorham's  amendment  included  cotton  exported  from 
any  State  to  any  other  State  or  to  any  foreign  port  as  merchandise.     It 
also  provided  that  foreign  wool,  costing  not  more  than  10  cents  per 
pound  at  the  place  whence  imported,  might  be  imported  free  of  duty. 
Ibid. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  795.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  803,  808. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          203 

sidered  a  navigation  and  import  bill  from  the  Committee 
on   Commerce,  reported  by  Cambreleng  and  opposed  by 
Mallary  and  Gorham.1     On  the  3d  of  May,  Blair,  of  South 
Carolina,  alluded  to  the  tariff'  system  as  "this    May3    The 
rider  on  the  pale  horse  (spoken  of  in  the  Apoca-    Pale  Horse- 
lypse)  that  brings  all  hell  after  it." 2     Elaborate  arguments 
against   and   for  protection  were   made  by  McDuffie   and 
Davis.3     The  policy  was  treated  at  large.     McDuflie's  was 
an  incisive,  eloquent,  bitter  arraignment  of  the 

.-.     ,  .  i  .  -,.  •    i  McDuffie. 

tariff,  charging  general  impolicy,  special  oppres 
sion  of  the  South,  and  essential  unconstitutionality.  This 
unconstitutionality,  he  argued,  was  the  worse  because  it  was 
covered  under  the  form  of  legality,  as  the  act  could  not 
be  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court.  He 
further  contended  that  a  tyranny  by  votes  was  worse  than 
one  by  arms,  because  more  insidious  and  giving  less  oppor 
tunity  for  resistance.  State  bounties,  he  said,  with  Hamil 
ton,  would  be  one  of  the  most  efficacious  means  of  encour 
aging  manufactures.  No  man  dared  to  avow  the  true  cause — 
the  avowal  of  which,  he  averred,  would  not  be  tolerated  by 
the  moral  sense  of  the  country — why  the  manufacturing 
States,  having  the  undoubted  power,  would  not  extend  any 
protection  to  their  own  manufactures,  but  sent  them  to 
Congress  for  relief.4 

Davis  devoted  a  large  part  of  his  reply  to  McDuffie's 
argument  that  the  exports  of  the  South  paid  the  duties  on 
imports.  The  latter's  interruptions  and  cor 
rections  served  to  impair  the  statement  the 
Massachusetts  member  was  making  of  the  views  of  the 
South  Carolinian.  Davis  contended  that  if  the  duties  were 
taken  out  of  the  raw  material,  because  of  the  tariff  in  the 
United  States,  then  there  should  be  a  discrimination  in  the 
price  of  cotton  from  different  portions  of  the  world,  and  it 
should  bear  a  higher  or  lower  price  according  as  the  duties 
on  manufactured  articles  were  higher  or  lower  in  the  coun- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  863-866.  2  Ibid.,  p.  870. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  842-862,  for  the  former  ;  873-884,  for  the  latter. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  855. 


204  A    HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

try  from  which  it  was  brought.  But  no  such  discrimination 
existed,  for  cotton  of  the  same  quality  bore  in  market  the 
same  price,  from  whatever  country  it  came.1  To  tbis 
McDuffie  replied  that  he  agreed  with  the  statement  of  the 
fact  that  cotton  bore  the  same  price,  come  whence  it  might, 
but  that  the  Southern  planter  received  goods  on  which  he 
paid  a  duty  of  two  hundred  and  fifteen  per  cent,  while  the 
planter  of  Brazil  received  goods  on  which  he  paid  a  duty  of 
only  fifteen  per  cent.  That  was  the  reason  why  the  South 
ern  planter  was  ground  down  and  the  other  was  not.  Davis, 
in  his  rejoinder,  argued  that  if  the  duties  were  deducted 
from  the  raw  material  and  paid,  as  the  gentleman  had 
asserted,  by  the  grower,  because  the  purchaser  controlled 
the  market,  then  it  was  clear  that  less  would  be  deducted 
from  Brazilian  cotton  than  from  ours,  and  there  would 
be  a  discrimination  in  price — a  difference  in  the  value. 
He  had  shown  that  there  was  no  such  difference,  and 
the  gentleman  had  admitted  it.  McDuffie,  however, 
showed  that  his  own  argument  was  not  that  the  Brazilian 
grower  could  not  raise  his  price,  but  that  the  American 
grower  could  not2  Davis,  in  the  latter  part  of  his  re 
marks,  speaking  of  the  Southern  planters,  observed : 
"  They  aim  to  build  up  the  cotton,  tobacco,  and  rice  inter 
ests  at  the  expense  of  the  rest  of  the  nation,  to  make  nine 
millions  of  people  bow  down  to  three  millions,  to  constrain 
us  to  give  up  the  market  to  them  and  ruin  ourselves,  that 
they  may  try  an  idle  experiment  to  see  if  they  cannot  obtain 
a  larger  price  for  cotton." 3 

Crawford,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  a  subsequent  day,  replied 
to  McDuffie's  question  as  to  State  bounties,  which  he  ad 
mitted  had  not  been  answered :  "  Does  not  the 
sagacious  gentleman  perceive  that  such  a  meas 
ure  would  be  worse  than  useless,  that  the  bounty  given 
would  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  citizens  in  the  neighboring 
States  whose   manufactures  would  be  undersold  by  those 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  877.  2  Ibid.,  p.  °^ 

8  Ibid.,  p.  883. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.         205 

receiving  the  bounty,  and  that  the  advantage  could  not  be 
confined  to  the  citizens  of  one  State  ?" l  Among  other 
speakers  were  Barn  well,  who  agreed  with  his  colleague  that 
producers  paid  the  duty ; 2  Wayne,  of  Georgia ; 3  Young ; 
Cambreleng,  in  reply  to  McDuffie  and  Davis;  other 
Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  whose  solution  of  the  speakers. 
question  raised  by  McDuffie  was  that  what  in  its  last  form 
was  a  Southern  staple  was  in  reality  in  part  the  produce  of 
other  portions  of  the  country.4  He  said  that  the  planter 
paid  the  tax  as  consumer,  not  as  producer.  Unlike  G-or- 
ham,  he  did  not  concede  that  there  was  any  case  in  which 
the  producer  and  not  the  consumer  paid  the  duties.  He 
gave  it  as  his  deliberate  opinion  that  the  States  most  bene 
fited  by  the  laws  for  the  protection  of  manufactures  were 
those  which  lay  south  of  the  Potomac.  His  reason  was 
that  the  South  held  a  monopoly  in  slaves,  that  this  species 
of  property  depreciated  because  of  the  state  of  the  cotton, 
rice,  and  tobacco  market,  and  that  it  could  be  profitably 
sold  to  the  sugar  planters  of  Louisiana.5  Drayton  quoted 
Mr.  Huskisson's  declaration  in  the  House  of  Commons  in 
1827  that  he  had  had  the  good  fortune  to  persuade  the 
House  within  a  few  years  to  repeal  fifteen  hundred  restric 
tions  and  prohibitory  statutes.6  But  Denny,  of  Penn 
sylvania,  introduced  into  the  discussion  certain  passages 
from  the  same  British  statesman,  which  based  the  British 
system  of  revenue  on  the  lowest  tariff  consistent  with  the 
support  of  government  and  internal  industry,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  showing  that  the  system  after  all  was  protective.7 
McDuffie's  present  position  was  contrasted  with  his  view  in 
1825  in  his  speech  on  the  Cumberland  Road,  where  he 
said :  "  The  consumer  does  not  pay  the  tax,  but  he  pays  it 
in  the  price  of  the  article." 8 

The  advice  of  Burges,  of  Rhode  Island,  to  the  Southern 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  891.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  892-896. 

3  Concluded  May  7  ;  ibid.,  p.  896.  *  Ibid.,  p.  904. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  906.  6Ibid.,  p.  913. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  918.  8  Ibid. 


206          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

people  that  they  should  relieve  themselves  from  distress  by 
"working  less  and  making  more,"  was  also  tendered  by 
Burges's  a  nuinker  °f  other  protection  speakers.1  He 
advice.  averred  that  the  cotton  planter  of  South  Carolina 
had  no  more  connection  with  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  than  had  the  tea  planter  of  China.2  The  planter  was 
not  obliged  to  take  any  part  of  his  cotton  crop  in  any  com 
modity.  He  also  claimed  that  South  Carolina  shared  with 
New  England  the  bounty  on  fish,  and  that  not  one  article 
of  use  among  the  slaves  bore  a  cent  of  duty.  The  whole 
clothing  of  a  slave  cost  less  than  five  dollars  yearly.3  On 
the  contrary,  New  England  labor  consumed  tea,  coffee,  sugar, 
and  fancy  goods.  The  labor  of  the  North,  he  contended, 
made  prosperous  by  the  American  system,  paid  into  the 
Treasury  a  greater  amount  of  import  duty  than  even  the 
South  Carolina  capitalists  themselves.4  Further  beneficence 
of  the  protective  system  as  respected  the  South  was  thus 
pointed  out :  "  The  tariff,  the  tariff,  I  say,  gives  to  the  cotton 
planters  of  South  Carolina  a  monopoly  of  the  whole  cotton 
market  of  the  United  States.  This  monopoly  is  secured  to 
them  by  a  duty  of  thirty-three  per  cent.,  by  a  perfect  pro 
tection."  The  monopolist,  he  contended,  was  the  South 
Carolina  planter,  lord  of  a  thousand  laborers,  whose  only 
care  was  to  feed,  to  thrive,  and  to  rail  at  the  whole  working 
world  who  do  not  drive  slaves,  and  make  cotton  and  tobacco.5 
The  ingenious  but  unsound  argument  of  McDuffie,  that 
the  producer  paid  all  of  the  duties,  was  adopted  by  several 
McDuffie's  ar-  Southern  debaters.6  Other  prominent  argu- 
gument  that  ments  were  the  effect  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
paid  ail  of  the  Union  upon  the  anti-tariff  States  and  upon  the 
duties-  States  then  enjoying  protection.7  McDuffie 

made  a  subtle  speech  in  reply  to  Gorham  and  Davis,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  charged  substantially  that  Northern 
prosperity  was  based  on  Southern  losses.8  The  argument 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  927.  2  Ibid.,  p.  932. 

8  Ibid.  *  Ibid.,  p.  933.          6  Ibid.,  p.  934.          6  Ibid.,  p.  943. 

7  Ibid.,  pp.  943,  937,  947,  among  others.  8  Ibid.,  p.  956. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1880  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          207 

that  reduction  of  duties  would  affect  seriously  Northern  in 
dustries  was  met  by  the  observation  that  gentlemen  should 
reflect  that  they  were  giving  the  strongest  possible  confirma 
tion  of  the  alleged  desolation  produced  by  the  duties  upon 
the  prosperity  of  the  planting  States.  In  his  second  speech 
Mr.  McDufSe  modified  his  former  argument,  having  ob 
served  that  it  went  too  far.  He  said  that  "  the 

McDuffie     sees 

principal  burden  fell  upon  the  producers/'  which  that  he  has 
was  something  different  from  his  contention  that  * 
it  all  fell  on  them.  He  was  very  effective  when  he  showed 
that  Burges  had  not  counted  the  importations  for  her  own 
use  made  by  South  Carolina  by  way  of  New  York,  but  only 
those  through  the  port  of  Charleston.1  His  analysis  of  the 
internal  trade  and  of  the  relative  consumption  by  the  manu 
facturing  and  planting  States  of  imported  articles  was  favor 
able  to  the  South.  Replying  to  Gorham  and  Everett's  posi 
tion  that  the  products  of  the  Southern  States  belonged 
equally  to  other  parts  of  the  country,  he  said :  "  It  results 
as  a  correlative  proposition  that  the  manufactures  of  the 
Northern  States  are  not  the  productions  of  Northern  but  of 
Southern  industry."2  He  assumed  that  if  the  Southern 
States  were  independent  they  would  lay  an  average  of  twenty 
per  cent,  duties.3  The  effect,  he  declared,  would  be  to  re 
duce  the  burdens  of  taxation  to  the  South,  provide  the 
equivalent  of  one  hundred  millions  capital,  and  desolate  and 
ruin  the  States  remaining  in  the  Union. 

McDuffie's  amendment  was  rejected  by  a  large  majority.4 
On  the  same  day  Buchanan's  substitute  for  the  committee's 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  959. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  961. 

3  This  was  in  reply  to  something  Martindale,  of  New  York,  had  said 
which  McDuffie  construed  into  a  disparagement  of  Southern  importance 
in  the  Union.     It  is  a  curious  coincidence  of  history  that  when  in  1861 
the  constitution  of  the  Confederate  States  was  adopted  there  should  have 
been  a  provision  forbidding  the  levying  of  a  higher  import  duty  than  one 
strictly  for  revenue.     In  the  first  general  revenue  act,  accordingly,  May 
21,  1861,  there  were  five  classifications :  five,  ten,  fifteen,  twenty,  and 
twenty-five  per  cent. 

4  Register  of  Debates,  p.  964. 


208  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

bill  was  adopted  without  division.  Amendments  to  it  were 
adopted,  the  effect  of  which  was  that  non-enumerated  arti 
cles  of  iron  and  steel,  or  articles  not  charged  with  specific 
duties,  should  pay  the  same  duty  as  was  provided  on  bar  or 
bolt  iron  in  the  act  of  1828,  and  all  such  iron  made  liable 
to  the  same  duty  as  was  charged  on  iron  in  pigs.  A  draw- 
wool  iron  mo-  back  was  provided  on  railroad  iron,  the  duty  on 
lasses,  etc.  which  was  not  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent,  in 
quantities  of  not  less  than  twenty  tons.1  McDuffie's  proposi 
tion  to  repeal  the  wool,  iron,  cotton,  cotton  bagging,  hemp, 
flax,  indigo,  and  molasses  duties  as  increased  by  the  act  of 
1828  vvas  moved  as  an  amendment  to  the  substitute  adopted 
by  the  committee  of  the  whole,  and  was  rejected  by  a 
vote  of  sixty-eight  to  one  hundred  and  twenty.2  Some 
excitement  arose  over  an  effort  by  Barringer,  of  North 
Carolina,  to  procure  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  to 
reduce  the  salt  duty.  It  was  at  first  carried.  But  the 
point  was  made  by  Gorham  and  Storrs  that  the  deci 
sion  of  the  House  involved  a  reconsideration  of  the  whole 
subject.  Debate  was  resumed  next  day.  The  general  result 
was  that  the  passage  of  the  salt  amendment  was 
bypasses  the  reconsidered,  and  a  modified  amendment  pro- 
House  and  fails  pOSed  by  McDuffie  was  defeated.  The  vote  on 

in  the  Senate.  ,    ,  ,. 

the  third  reading  of  the  bill  was  ayes  one  hun 
dred  and  fifteen,  noes  twenty-four.  The  bill  passed  the 
House  on  May  13  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven  to  forty-one.3  It  was  lost  in  the  Senate. 

The  bill  of  1830  contained  nine  sections,  the  third  and 
ninth  of  which  were  intended  especially  to  increase  the  pro 
tection  on  woollen  and  cotton  goods  and  certain  grades  of 
iron.  There  were  many  safeguards  provided  against  frauds 
on  the  revenue.  One  of  the  provisions  was  that  whenever 
goods  of  which  wool  or  cotton  was  a  component  part,  of 
similar  kind  but  different  quality,  were  found  in  the  same 
package,  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  appraiser  to  adopt 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  965. 

2  The  question  was  divided. 

3  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  979,  987  ;  Senate  Journal,  p.  645. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND    OTHER  EVENTS.          209 

the  value  of  the  best  article  as  the  average  value  of  the 
whole. 

Other  measures  considered  at  this  session  have  been  re 
ferred  to  above.     A  number  of  additional  motions  to  secure 
a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  salt  were  pressed,  but    May  14 
were  defeated.1     On  the  14th  of  May  Cambre-   Navigation, 
leng's  navigation  bill  was  laid  on  the  table  with  the  consent 
of  himself  and  other  low  tariff  advocates.     The  bill  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  reducing  the  salt  duty  after 
December  31,  1831,  to  ten  cents  was  opposed    May  27    Salt 
by  Ingersoll  with  an  amendment  to  reduce  the    duty  reduced, 
duty  on  molasses.2     But  the  bill  finally  passed  intact  on  the 
27th  of  May.3 

Memorials  and  counter-memorials  on  the  reduction  of  the 
iron  duties  were  presented  in  the  Senate,  respectively  by  the 
blacksmiths  and  the  iron  manufacturers  of  Phila-  Petitiong  {or 
delphia.4  On  the  26th  of  February,  Hayne,  the  reduction 

,  .  -I  •    1     i      i    i  of  the  iron  du- 

from  the  select  committee  which  had  been  ap-  ties.  February 
pointed  on  the  subject,  reported  in  favor  of  the  26> 
petitions  for  reduction.  A  contest  having  arisen  between 
the  high  and  low  tariff  parties  on  the  reception  of  a  minor 
ity  report,  "Webster's  motion  to  table  the  whole  question 
prevailed.5  At  this  session  an  adverse  report  was  made  on 


1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  994,  1016,  and  other  pages. 

2  Reported  by  McDuffie  on  the  19th  of  May. 


8  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1139. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  41-44,  214,  313. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  317.    This  very  able  report  is  found  on  page  105  of  the 
appendix  to  vol.  vii.  of  the  Register  of  Debates  (second  session,  Twenty- 
first  Congress.)     "  In  the  examination  which  they  have  made  of  this 
subject,"  says  the  report,  "  the  committee  have  been  forcibly  struck  with 
the  sound  and  conclusive  reasons  which  the  petitioners  have  adduced  in 
support  of  the  position  that  a  low  duty  on  the  raw  material  is  the  only 
just  and  effectual  means  by  which  American  manufactures  can  receive  a 
wholesome  encouragement;  that  the  due  proportion  which  all  admit 
ought  to  be  preserved  between  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  and  that  on 
the  manufactured  article  can,  in  this  instance,  be  obtained  only  by  a  re 
duction  of  the  duty  on  the  former ;  and  that  such  a  measure,  whilst  it 
would  duly  encourage  the  American  mechanics  and  lessen  the  tax  upon 
consumers,  would  not  be  injurious  to  the  owners  of  the  rich  and  valuable 

14 


210          A   HIS TOR Y  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

a  bill,  introduced  by  Brown,  of  North  Carolina,  reducing 
the  duty  on  sugar.  Leave  was  refused  Benton  to  intro 
duce  a  bill  to  repeal  the  salt  duty.1  He  was  as  zealous  in 
this  cause  as  his  venerable  friend,  Mr.  Macon,  had  ever 
been.  The  leading  point  in  his  speech  on  a  subsequent 
occasion  was  that  the  amount  of  taxation  was  two  mil 
lions  and  a  quarter  upon  an  article  of  prime  necessity  to 
the  poor  the  original  cost  of  which  article  was  only  three- 
quarters  of  a  million  dollars.  His  salt  amendment  to  the 
bill  reducing  the  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  and  cocoa  was 
rejected.2 

Benton  was  prolific  at  this  time  of  measures  for  the  re 
duction  of  the  tariff.  His  "  bill  to  provide  for  the  abolition 
Benton's  tariff  °^  unnecessary  duties,  to  relieve  the  people  of 
reform  zeai.  sixteen  millions  of  taxes  and  to  improve  the 
condition  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  commerce,  and  navi 
gation  of  the  United  States,"  was  professedly  based  on 
Jefferson's  idea  of  equivalents;  that  is,  duties  were  to  be 
lowered  to  such  nations  as  might  by  treaty  reciprocate.3 
"  It  proposes,"  he  said,  "  that  Congress  shall  select  the  arti 
cles  for  abolition  of  duty,  and  then  leave  it  to  the  Executive 
to  extend  the  provisions  of  the  act  to  such  powers  as  will 
grant  us  equivalent  advantages."  The  bill  included  silks, 
worsteds,  linens,  wines,  coffee,  cocoa,  Oriental  fruits,  nuts, 
drugs,  and  many  other  articles.  One  of  the  notable  pro 
visions  was  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on  alum  salt  and  the 
bounty  and  allowance  system  as  to  fish.  Upon  a  question 
whether  the  Senate  was  competent  to  originate  such  a 
measure,  one  of  the  sections  providing  for  the  raising  of 
duty  on  certain  articles,  Benton,  at  Webster's  suggestion, 
withdrew  the  bill. 


iron  mines  of  the  United  States,  and  so  far  from  diminishing  the  re 
sources  of  the  country,  that  such  a  measure  would  add  greatly  to  the 
comforts  of  the  people  and  promote  their  prosperity  in  peace  and  security 
in  war." 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  103,  120,  194 ;  Appendix,  Ixxii. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  428.     Benton  introduced  one  bill,  and  withdrew  it. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  172-179. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          211 

The  House  bill  reducing  the  duties  on  tea, 
coffee,  and  cocoa  passed  the   Senate  May  11,    coa'reduced.C(> 
1830.1 

The  bill  to  exempt  (in  effect  to  refund  duties  on)  certain 
articles  coming  under  operation  of  the  act  of  May,  1828, 
which  articles  had  been  ordered  and  the  order  for  which 
could  not  be  countermanded,  and  where  the  goods  had  been 
actually  imported  before  the  1st  of  September  in  the  regular 
course  of  business,  was  rejected  in  the  Senate  after  some 
debate.2 

On  the  25th  of  February,  1831,  Benton  introduced  six 
teen  resolutions  on  foreign  commerce,  advocating  a  reduc 
tion  of  duty  on  articles  not  produced  in  the 
United  States,  admitting  one-half  of  the  imports  ^f 
free  of  duty.  The  free  list  contained  linens,  s|xteen 
worsted  stuff  goods,  several  descriptions  of 
woollens,  fine  cottons,  silks,  wines,  coffee,  etc.  The  prin 
ciple  of  equivalence  entered.  Foreign  nations  were  offered 
beef,  pork,  fish,  live  stock,  grain,  tobacco,  spirits  made  of 
grain  or  molasses,  furs,  lumber,  naval  stores,  silk,  wool,  and 
other  articles.  At  the  request  of  their  author,  the  resolu 
tions  were  referred,  with  no  intention  that  they  should  be 
acted  upon  at  that  session.3 

Efforts  were  made  to  procure  a  repeal  of  the  duties  on 
bar  iron,  cotton  bagging,  and  brown  sugar.4 

At  the  second  session  of  the  Twenty-second  Congress  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures  reported  a  bill  to  repeal  the  act 
of  May  29,  1830,  reducing  the  salt  tax,  and  an 

%        '  .  .  Twenty-second 

angry  debate  arose  on  the  subject.  Spaight,  of  congress,  see- 
Forth  Carolina,  said  that  the  South  was  on  the  ondsession- 
eve  of  rebellion.  "Yes,  sir,  the  day  is  fast  approaching 
when  the  people  of  the  South  will  arise  in  their  majesty 
and  stalk  the  avenues  of  this  House  and  take  vengeance  on 
their  oppressors.  Yes,  sir,  I  fear  this  House,  under  which 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  432. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  452.  »  Ibid.,  pp.  285,  312. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.  355,  359,  456,  465,  486,  543,  809,  828. 


212          A    HIS 'TOR Y  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

they  claim  the  right  to  tax  us,  will  be  made  to  reel  to  and 
fro  like  a  drunken  man."  1     Tucker,  of  South  Carolina,  ex 
pressed  regret  that  the  gentleman  had  made  these 

Angry    debate     r  G  ••»••• 

over  the  salt  remarks.  He  said  that  it  was  his  own  wish 
to  put  down  excitement.  But  Thompson,  of 
Georgia,  averred  that  the  people  of  the  South,  if  the  bill 
was  passed,  would  be  driven  to  the  necessity  of  resistance. 
The  bill  was  tabled  after  its  second  reading.2 

A  report  written  by  Polk,  chairman  of  the  select  commit 
tee  of  the  House  on  the  subject  appointed  to  consider  that 
The  surplus  portion  of  the  President's  message,  presented  a 
revenue.  summary  of  the  question  of  distributing  the  sur 

plus  revenue.  A  debate  followed  on  the  motion  to  print  the 
report.  The  resolution  was  agreed  to  finally.3 

From  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
made  at  the  first  session  of  the  Twenty-second  Congress,  it 
appears  that  in  the  year  the  accruing  duties 
were  $29,951,915;  the  drawbacks  payable, 
of  the  Treas-  $4,001,665.  By  comparison  with  other  recent 
years  the  following  facts  were  seen:  In  1829 
the  accruing  duties  were  $27,689,731 ;  the  drawbacks  pay 
able,  $4,213,168.  In  1830  the  accruing  duties  were  $28,- 
299,159;  the  drawbacks  payable,  $4,511,182.4  The  subject 
of  the  tariff  was  precipitated  by  resolutions  offered  by 
Bouldin,  of  Virginia,  and  Dearborn,  of  Massachusetts,  the 
Tariff  proposi-  letter's  providing  for  the  exemption  from  duties 
tions.  on  wood,  teas,  coffee,  wines,  pepper,  spices,  and 

indigo,  not  exceeding  in  market  price  in  the  United  States 
twelve  cents  a  pound.  This  was  withdrawn.5  Bouldin's  reso 
lution  provided  for  an  inquiry  by  the  Commerce  Committee 
into  the  practical  effect  of  the  revenue  laws,  whether  they 
were  prohibitory  or  not,  with  specific  information.  The  de 
bate  on  the  reference  of  this  proposition  was  quite  extended, 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  572. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  616.     The  vote  was  one  hundred  and  forty-five  to  forty -one. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii.,  p.  620. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  1440.  &  Ibid.,  pp.  1442,  1446. 


THE  DEBATE  OF  1830  AND    OTHER  EVENTS.          213 

and  embraced  the  whole  question  of  minimum  duties.1  It 
began  on  the  13th  and  concluded  on  the  24th  of  January. 
During  this  discussion,  which  was  deprecated 
by  McDuffie  as  premature,  Appleton,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  claimed  to  know  from  an  intimate  friend  who  had 
passed  a  great  part  of  the  session  of  1816  in  the  Congress 
what  influenced  South  Carolina  to  lead  in  the  establishment 
of  that  tariff,  and  especially  to  propose  minimum  duties. 
South  Carolina  was  assured,  he  said,  that  under  the  protec 
tion  of  this  minimum,  imposing  a  specific  duty  of  six  and 
one-fourth  cents  the  square  yard  on  the  inferior  cottons, 
the  American  cotton  might  be  successfully  manufactured 
in  this  country,  and  thus  made  to  supersede  the  cottons 
then  in  use,  the  product  both  of  foreign  manufacture  and 
foreign  soil.  In  supporting  this  measure,  therefore,  con 
tinued  the  Massachusetts  member,  whatever  other  mo 
tives  may  have  influenced  her,  South  Carolina  was  follow 
ing  the  dictates  of  an  enlightened  self-interest, — nay,  more, 
of  an  enlightened  and  enlarged  patriotism.2  McDufSe 
replied  by  saying  that  he  was  glad  that  the  gentleman 
had  made  it  his  duty,  as  it  was  clearly  in  his  (McDuffie 's) 
power,  to  vindicate  the  Representatives  of  South  Caro 
lina  from  unjust  and  ungenerous  aspersions  that  had  been, 
brought  against  them  elsewhere.  He  then  recapitulated 
the  provisions  of  the  tariff  of  1816 :  that  it  provided  for 
a  diminution  of  duties  from  twenty-seven  and  thirty-three 
per  cent,  to  twenty-five,  which,  after  a  certain  period,  was- 
to  be  reduced  to  twenty.  South  Carolina  had  no  such, 
interested  sagacity  as  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  had 
given  her  credit  for.  Look  into  the  records  of  the  proceed 
ings,  he  continued,  and  see  if  a  word  was  uttered  in  favor  of 
that  act  on  the  ground  assumed  by  the  gentleman.3  Wilde,, 
of  Georgia,  declared  that  he,  too,  was  in  the  House  at 
the  time  referred  to.  There  was  no  member  whose  opin 
ions  received  so  much  respect  and  attention  as  those  of 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  1546,  1549,  1558,  1568,  1595,  1599,  1625. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1602.  8  Ibid,,  p,  1607. 


214          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

William  Lowndes.  That  man  was  no  friend  to  high 
duties.  He  voted  in  favor  of  a  proposition  made  by  his 
colleague  to  reduce  to  twenty  per  cent.,  and  the  South 
ern  vote  was  the  same  way.  The  minimum,  Wilde  ex 
plained,  was  intended  to  aifect  the  coarse  cottons  of 
India,  with  a  view  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  specie.1 
The  resolution,  as  amended  by  Davis,  was  adopted.  In  its 
final  form  it  provided  for  an  enquiry  and  report  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Manufactures  into  the  effect  of  the  revenue  laws, 
designating  the  manner  in  which  the  sum  upon  which  the 
duties  were  made  up  was  assessed,  and  also  the  per  cent. 
upon  goods  subject  to  the  square  yard  duty,  and  whether 
any  goods  were  prohibited  by  the  amount  of  duties;  also, 
as  to  whether  there  were  frauds,  and,  if  so,  how  they  were 
to  be  prevented  ;  also,  whether  the  statute  value  of  the 
pound  sterling  ought  to  be  so  modified  as  to  conform  to  the 
value  in  the  United  States.2 

Drayton,  on  the  23d  of  January,  presented  the  anti-nullifi 

cation  memorial  from  South  Carolina,  protesting  against  the 

laws  of  the  United  States  imposing  high  duties 

The  anti-nulli-  to 

memo-    on  foreign  merchandise  for  the  protection  of 


manufactures.  It  was  set  forth  that  the  evils 
under  which  South  Carolina  was  suffering  were  obvious  and 
alarming;  that  if  other  causes  conspired  to  reduce  the  in 
come  of  her  citizens,  it  was  the  tariff  alone  which  denied 
them  the  right  of  converting  that  reduced  income  into  such 
an  amount  of  the  necessaries  or  conveniences  of  life  as 
would  certainly  be  at  their  command  under  the  revenue 
system  of  moderate  duties;  that  those  difficulties,  though 
great,  might  be  tolerated  if  the  burden  was  equal,  but  they 
were  greatly  exaggerated  by  the  consideration  that  the  bene 
fits  of  the  tariff  were  confined  to  the  manufacturing  States, 
and  that  South  Carolina  felt  the  weight  of  the  protecting 
system  but  received  no  part  of  the  compensation.  The 
memorial  disclaimed  altogether  the  language  of  violence 
and  intimidation,  but  the  Union  party  insisted  that  it  was 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1609.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1625. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          215 

the  duty  of  the  government  to  abstain  from  such  legislation 
as  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and  opinions  of  the 
people.1  A  short  sectional  debate  occurred  on  Drayton's 
motion  to  refer  the  memorial  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Com 
mittee,  to  which  some  of  the  friends  of  protection  objected. 
Finally  it  was  so  referred.2  The  journeymen  tailors  of  Phila 
delphia  presented  on  the  same  day,  through  Drayton,  a  peti 
tion  praying  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  twenty-five  per  cent.3 

On  February  8,  McDuffie,  from  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  reported  a  bill  to  reduce  and  equalize  the  duties 
on  imports.     In  the  brief  debate  on  that  day 
various   members  of  the  committee  expressed    Mc^Duffil  8  re- 
their  dissent  from  the  report.4     Ingersoll  and    J*^3   a  tarifl 
Gilmore  agreed  in  the  matter  of  the  protective 
policy  in  opposing  the  report,  and  Verplanck  did  not  concur 
in  that  part  which  represented  that  the  burdens  of  the  tariff 
were  borne  altogether  by  the  cotton  and  planting  States. 
He  thought  that  a  heavy  weight  was  laid  on  the  free  laborer 
of   the   North,   as   well   as   upon   commercial   enterprise.5 
Nothing  more  occurred  on  the  subject  in  the  House  until 
the  23d  of  May,  when   John   Quincy  Adams    M&  23 
presented  a  report  and  bill  from  the  Committee    J.  Q.  Adams's 
on  Manufactures.     The  bill  was  based,  with  im 
portant  departures,  on  the  bill  and  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  which  had  been  referred  to  the  committee. 
There  was  only  a  general  concurrence  of  the  committee  in 
the  bill.6 

The  general  debate  on  the  former  measure  opened  on  the 
28th  of  May  by  an  extended  argument  in  its  favor  by  its 
author.  As  a  whole,  it  was  a  stronger  and  May  23. 
more  lucid  exposition  of  his  favorite  theory  of  General  debate- 
the  working  of  the  tariff  than  his  speech  in  the  last  Con 
gress.  The  proposed  reduction  on  leading  articles,  he  ex- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1619. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1024.     Denny  proposed  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  but 
was  induced  by  Burges  and  Everett  to  withdraw  his  motion. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1625.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1768. 
5  Ibid.,  p.  1764.                                                                  6  Ibid.,  p.  3090. 


216  A    HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

plained,  was  from  the  30th  of  June,  1832,  to  twenty-five 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  ;  to  the  30th  of  June,  1833,  to  eighteen 
and  three-fourths  per  centum,  and  to  June  30,  1834,  to 
twelve  and  one-half  per  centum,  and  was  treated  as  a  grad 
ual  reduction  sufficient  to  produce  revenue  for  all  necessary 
expenses,  and  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  Southern  States.1 
He  estimated  the  ordinary  and  permanent  expenses  at  eight 
million  dollars,  and  the  income  under  the  proposed  tariff  at 
twelve  million  dollars,  leaving  a  surplus  for  pensions  and 
contingencies  of  four  million  dollars.  MeDuffie,  one  of  the 
most  original  and  eloquent  of  the  Southern  leaders,  turned 
the  argument  from  its  usual  course,  and  asserted  that  the 
bill  was  a  "  generous  and  liberal  overture"  by  the  South  to 
the  over-protected  North.  He  denied  that  injustice  would 
be  inflicted  upon  the  manufacturers  of  the  country,  but  ad 
mitted  that  they  would  "  sustain  damage  without  injury." 
On  the  apprehended  invasion  of  the  United  States  by  for 
eign  manufactures,  he  held  that  they  could  never  come  and 
be  brought  into  competition  with  domestic  manufactures 
until  they  had  ceased  to  be  the  productions  of  foreign  and 
had  become  the  productions  of  American  industry.2  The 
controversy,  then,  he  argued,  resolved  itself  into  a  competi 
tion  between  the  Southern  planters  and  the  Northern  manu 
facturers  for  supplying  the  market  of  the  United  States  with 
certain  descriptions  of  manufactures.3 

Mr.  MeDuffie  restated,  with  further  modification,  his  old 
view  that  the  producer  of  exports  paid  the  duty.     "  The 
i-   truth  is,"  he  said,  "that  when  a  small  portion 


fies  his  theory    only  of  a  certain  description  of  commodities  is 

about  the  pro-  ,,...,.          , 

ducer    paying    set  apart  for  taxation,  and  a  discriminating  duty 

is  levied  upon  that  portion,  it  follows  of  neces 

sity  that  the  greater  part  of  the  burden  imposed  upon  these 


1  "Register  of  Debates,  pp.  3120-3170. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  3126.     This  was  the  leading  prop  in  the  arch  that  supported 
his  bridge. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  3132.     He  contended  that  the  protecting  duties  inflicted 
greater  injury  on  Southern  planters  than  they  conferred   benefits  on 
Northern  manufacturers. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND    OTHER  EVENTS.          217 

selected  and  proscribed  articles  must  fall  upon  their  pro 
ducers."  But  he  admitted  that  "  the  precise  proportion 
which  the  consumers  and  producers  respectively  bear  of 
the  burdens  imposed  must  be  in  some  degree  conject 
ural."1 

Impressed  by  a  sense  of  the  necessity  for  union  and  har 
mony,  Crawford  yet  felt  that  the  prosperity  of  the  nation 
was  intimately  connected  with  an  adherence  to  the  existing 
policy  of  protection.2  In  reply  to  McDuffie, 
Appleton  contended  that  the  impost  duty  was 
incorporated  into  the  price  of  the  commodity  imported,  and 
the  payment  of  a  tax  depended  on  the  fact  of  a  purchase. 
In  the  purely  financial  and  practical  argument  near  the 
close  of  the  speech  he  seems  to  have  had  some  advantage 
of  McDuffie.  But  in  his  final  statement  he  asserted  without 
proof  that  the  value  of  any  part  of  the  productions  of  the 
planting  States  was  not  diminished  by  the  tariff;  on  the 
contrary,  cotton  culture  had  been  increased  palpably  by  the 
establishment  of  cotton  manufactures  in  the  country.3  He 
said  that  it  was  remarkable  that  the  opposition  to  the  tariff 
was  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  slaves,  and  greatest  in 
South  Carolina.  The  facts  as  they  appeared  suggested  the 
enquiry,  he  thought,  whether  this  cheap  slave  labor  did  not 
paralyze  the  industry  of  the  whites.  He  declared  that  he 
had  made  all  possible  investigation,  and  he  had  found  that 
the  picture  of  distress  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro 
lina  was  not  confirmed;  rice  planters  were  never  more 
prosperous,  and  cotton  planters  were  said  to  be  in  no 
distress.4 

Bouldin  remarked  that  the  convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution  had  expressly  withheld  from  Congress  the  right 
to  protect  manufactures,  which  was,  therefore,      Bouidm-s 
reserved   to  the   States.5     He  denied  that  the      view< 
complaint  in  the  South  came  only  from  the  rich  planters ; 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3141.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3172. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  3203.  *  Ibid.,  p.  3205.  6  Ibid.,  p.  3212. 


218          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

he  himself  represented  in  a  peculiar  manner  the  small  free 
holders.     On   June   1,  the   committee  of  the  whole  took 
up  the  hill  from  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
The    McDuffie   tures,  after  having  voted  to  strike  out  all  after 

estroyed.       ^    enacting  WQrds  of  the  McDuffie  bill.1       The 

debate  proceeded.  Drayton  observed  that  opposite  senti 
ments  on  the  tariff  had  not  grown  out  of  party  dissensions; 
differences  had  become  geographical.  The  protective  system 
generated  the  bitterest  animosities,  and  he  therefore  urged 
upon  the  House  the  adoption  of  a  middle  ground.2  He 
dwelt  upon  the  real  evils  of  protection,  but  controverted  the 
the  right  of  a  minority  to  arrest  the  execution  of  laws. 

Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  saying  that  the  bill  from  the 

Treasury  w^ould  operate  to  increase  taxation  by  increasing 

revenue,  offered  a  substitute.     He  drew  an  ironi- 

A  substitute 

bill.  Stewart  cal  picture  of  the  distress  that  would  ensue  it 
the  bill  was  not  passed.  The  alternative,  he 
said,  was  to  go  hat  in  hand  to  some  Southern  nabob  with 
his  thousand  slaves  and  his  six  hundred  votes  and  beg  leave 
to  hoe  corn  at  six  pence  a  day  among  his  negroes.3  "  If 
these  are  South  Carolina's  terms  of  compromise,  I  say,  for 
one,  let  her  go."  He  added :  "  The  Union  would  remain 
unbroken,  although  for  a  season  rebellion  reared  its  bloody 
standard." 4  He  thought,  however,  that  she  would  not  incur 
the  perils  of  civil  war.  A  great  part  of  his  argument  was 
directed  to  maintaining  the  assertion  that  the  South  was  try 
ing  to  break  up  Northern  industry,  although  protection  was 
the  policy  which  benefited  all  alike.5  The  Stewart  bill  was 
essentially  the  same  as  that  offered  by  Dickerson  in  the 
Senate.  The  chief  features  were  ten  per  cent,  reduction  for 
two  years,  negro  clothing  free  of  duty,  and  reduction  of 
duties  on  unprotected  articles.6  As  the  debate  proceeded, 
the  arguments  were  repeated,  the  history  of  tariff  legislation 
was  restated,  and  sectional  feeling  engendered  at  the  same 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3242.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3263. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  3270.  4  Ibid.,  p.  3271.  6Ibid.,  p.  3276. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  3290. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          219 

time  and  by  the  same  speakers  by  whom  it  was  deplored. 
Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  cited  the  messages  of  the  Govern ers 
of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Alabama,  and  The  complain. 
the  figures  of  the  census,  to  prove  that  the  people  ins  southem- 
of  the  cotton  States  were  not  suffering.  The  they  are  not 
actual  annual  increase  in  the  production  of  raw  suffenng- 
cotton  in  the  United  States  since  1816  was  two  hundred 
and  eighty-seven  million  pounds.  The  price  had  ranged 
between  nine  and  fifteen  cents;  omitting  1825,  the  average 
price,  he  stated,  was  eleven  and  three-fourths  cents.  "  Down 
with  the  duties  on  cloth,"  says  the  planter;  and  yet  cloth 
which  in  1816  had  sold  for  fifteen  cents  was  heavy  in  the 
market  at  eight  and  three-fourths  in  1830.1  He  spoke  of 
the  "insatiate  avarice  of  the  greedy  planters,"  and  of  "the 
lofty,  manly  spirit  of  independence  which  swelled  the  bosom 
of  the  free,  enlightened  laborer."  The  old  argument  that 
because  the  slaves  were  represented  in  Congress  under  the 
Constitution  their  masters  should  not  complain,  was  used  by 
the  most  intelligent  of  the  protectionists.  It  was  also  again 
declared  that  the  South  was  trying  to  monopolize  the  mar 
kets,  and  that  this  was  the  true  question  between  the  oppos 
ing  sides.2  Mitchell,  of  South  Carolina,  replied, 
with  great  calmness  and  some  force  and  dignity, 
to  the  speeches  of  Stewart  and  Davis.3  He  showed  that 
while  all  seemed  anxious  for  an  adjustment  of  the  tariff, 
each  individual  was  opposed  to  sacrificing  any  of  his  own 
interests.  The  demonstration  was  clear  that  the  bill  of 
Stewart's  in  one  section  stipulated  reduction,  wrhile  in 
another  it  artfully  increased  the  price  of  the  article  to  the 
consumer.4  Mr.  Adams's  bill  also  had  his  unqualified  dis 
approbation,  because  it  proposed  to  raise  a  revenue  beyond 
the  expenditures  of  government.  He  argued  further  that 
there  was  evidence  of  a  popular  demand  for  reduction  found 
in  the  action  of  the  New  York  protection  convention  and 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3308.  l  Ibid.,  pp.  3312-3316. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  3326-3340.  *  Ibid.,  p.  3328. 


220          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  introduction  in  the  Senate  of  Mr.  Clay's  bill.1  He  de 
clared  that  manufactures  had  flourished  most  in  the  periods 
when  there  was  the  smallest  protection.  He  cited  figures  in 
proof  for  the  twenty  years  before  and  the  twenty  years  suc 
ceeding  1810 ;  the  former  a  revenue  and  the  latter  a  protec 
tive  era.2  Mitchell's  method  was  less  sectional,  and,  there 
fore,  more  effective  than  McDuffie's.  Bell,  of 
Tennessee,  made  a  philosophical  and  practical 
argument,  deploring  party  divisions  on  sectional  lines. 
Both  parties  were  friendly  to  the  Union  on  their  own  terms. 
The  majority  had  less  excuse  than  the  minority  in  refusing 
to  make  a  compromise.  The  first  great  care  of  an  Ameri 
can  statesman  was  to  preserve  our  free  institutions;  the 
next  was  so  to  administer  their  offices  as  to  secure  the  com 
fort  and  happiness  of  the  greatest  possible  number  of  the 
citizens  of  the  country.3  The  true  American  policy  was  the 
discouragement  of  the  accumulation  of  great  wealth  in  the 
hands  of  individuals.4  These  considerations  led  him  to 
oppose  the  protective  policy.  He  said  that  it  was  a  disas 
trous  day  when  the  great  popular  leaders  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  gave  way  to  the  delusion  that  there  was 
compensation  for  low  prices  in  increased  production,  and 
established  the  system  of  governmental  regulation.5  The 
complaint  was  imaginary ;  if  the  prices  of  our  productions 
were  low,  the  prices  of  articles  from  abroad  received  in  ex 
change  were  also  much  reduced.  The  tariff  only  brought 
prosperity  to  the  protected  interests  and  the  interests  imme 
diately  surrounding.  From  his  own  observation,  Kentucky 
was  one  of  the  States  suffering  most  under  its  operation.6 

Some  of  the  friends  of  a  protective  policy  admitted  that 

there  had  been  extensive  losses  in  the  South,  produced  by  a 

fall  in  prices.7     One  of  the  ablest  speakers  on 

Concessions. 

that  side  was  Evans,  of  Maine,  who  addressed 
himself  largely  to  the  arguments  of  Bell  and  McDuffie. 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3333.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3338. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  3354.        *  Ibid.,  p.  3356.        6  Ibid.,  p.  3367. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  3375.        7  Ibid.,  p.  3398. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          221 

The  leading  point  in  his  contention  was,  that  anything  less 
than  complete  protection  was  illusory,  and  he  therefore  op 
posed  all  compromise  propositions.1  It  was  not  a  question 
of  giving  protection,  but  of  withholding  protection — of 
subverting  interests. 

Clay,  of  Alabama,  contended  that  this  was  not  a  question 
of  South  Carolina  against  the  manufacturing  States,  with 
the  Southern  and  Southwestern  States  standing  off  as  indif 
ferent  spectators :  from  the  Potomac  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi,  all  agreed  as  to  the  great  and  unequal  burden 
of  taxation.2  Nor  did  the  Southern  speakers  forget  to  ad 
duce  the  old  argument  that  the  tariff  was  un- 

0  The  old  argu- 

constitutional.3  They  quoted  Webster  on  the  meat  of  uncon- 
embargo  act  to  sustain  their  position  that  the 
regulation  of  commerce  did  not  mean  its  destruction.4  One 
of  the  most  interesting  and  well  furnished  of  their  debaters 
was  Wilde,  who  said :  "  If  one  kind  of  industry  alone  is 
protected,  it  must  be  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest.  If  all 
are  protected  alike,  none  are  benefited.  You 

1  Wilde. 

merely  enable  me  to  put  my  hand  into  my 
neighbor's  pocket,  and  take  out  as  much  as  you  have  previ 
ously  authorized  him  to  take  out  of  mine."5  His  brilliant 
picture-gallery  of  the  worthies  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress 
who  passed  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  his  defence  of  their 
action,  is  among  the  finest  efforts  of  oratory  made  on  the 
occasion,  although  perhaps  too  fervid  and  overloaded  with 
flowers.6  Choate  commended  to  the  minority 

Choate. 

"  the  moral  duty  of  acquiescence."     In  reply  to 
Bell,  this  eloquent  son  of  Massachusetts  said  that  civil  gov 
ernment  was  instituted  mainly  for  the  care  of  property. 
"You,"  alluding  to  the  Congress,  "invited  this  property 
into  this  investment."7 

Northern  speakers  predicted  the  Deluge  if  the  bill  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3422.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3457. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  3459,  3530.  4  Ibid.,  p.  3461.  5  Ibid.,  p.  3477. 

6  Choate,  on  the  following  day,  said  that  the  praise  was  bestowed  with 
much  candor  and  discrimination.     Ibid.,  3514. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  3516. 


222          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

"Ways  and  Means  Committee  were  adopted,  and  argued 
that  Massachusetts  would  have  as  much  right  to  secede  if 
Northern  it  were  passed  as  South  Carolina  would  in  the 
alarm.  event  the  protective  system  were  continued.1 
Choate's  remedy  for  the  excitement  at  the  South  was: 
"Find  what  are  the  articles  of  exclusive  Southern  con 
sumption  and  important  in  the  economy  of  the  South,  and 
relieve  them  of  all  protecting  duty."2  The  same  orator 
also  said,  as  if  he  were  not  so  hopeful  of  his  plan  being 
made  effectual,  "There  seems  to.be,  I  have  feared,  ground 
laid  for  a  separation  of  the  States,  not  so  much  in  the  faults 
of  man  as  in  the  nature  of  things." 3  A  remarkable  ex 
pression — apparently  justifying  as  destiny  what  he  deplored 
and  sought  by  every  ingenuity  to  thwart.  Clayton,  of 
Georgia,  said  he  was  a  stockholder  in  a  manufacturing 
company,  and  that  he  was  of  opinion  that  manufactures 
could  be  more  profitably  conducted  at  the  South  than  they 
could  be  at  the  North.4  He  made  an  impassioned  denial 
of  the  charge  that  the  South  was  disloyal.  But  he  added  : 
"Do  not  deprive  us  of  all  our  blessings  under  the  empty 
sound  of  Union." 5 

The  protection  argument  that  the  tariff  was  derived  from 
the  South  was  advanced  further  by  Sutherland,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  who  assigned  its  origin  to  Virginia,  in  Jefferson's  ad 
ministration.  He  said,  notwithstanding  repeated  disclaimers 
of  Southern  men,  that  they  desired  the  duty  on  cotton  to 
remain,  that  if  the  duty  were  taken  off,  Pernambuco  cotton 
would  be  furnished  to  Northern  manufacturers  on  advan 
tageous  terms.6  Lewis,  of  Alabama,  replied 

The  cotton  tax         &  '  '         i 

ciaimed  to  be  a  that  the  South  did  not  call  for  the  repeal  of  the 
cotton  tax  because  it  was  a  dead  letter.  Im 
posed  for  revenue,  it  had  served  no  purpose  but  to  be  cast 
into  the  teeth  of  Southern  members  as  an  instance  of  pro 
tection  to  Southern  industry.7  He  asked :  "If  the  gentle- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3520  (Choate).  2  Ibid.,  p.  3524. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  3525.  *  Ibid.,  p.  3554.  5  Ibid.,  p.  3567. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  3563. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  3584.     The  debates  bear  out  this  assertion. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND    OTHER  EVENTS.         223 

man  is  in  favor  of  giving  protection  to  all  branches  of 
national  industry,  why  does  he  not  give  the  South  a  sub 
stantial,  not  a  nominal,  bounty  on  her  cotton,  rice,  and 
tobacco  ?"  He  declared  that  the  South  would  not  be  satis 
fied  with  less  than  the  practical  abandonment  of  the  prin 
ciple  of  protection.1  Twelve  and  one-half  per  cent,  protection 
•at  the  expense  of  the  South  was  more  than  any  Southern 
planter  realized  from  his  capital. 

The  Southern  protectionist  took  part  in  the  debates.  He 
was  for  moderation.  Bullard,  of  Louisiana,  stated  that 
cotton  planting  in  his  section  was  more  pro-  The  southern 
ductive  than  sugar.  The  superior  productive-  P™^10™'- 
ness  of  the  Southwest  had  contributed  to  depress  the 
southern  Atlantic  States.  He  thought  that  the  diminished 
prosperity  of  the  South  wTas  not  attributable  entirely  to  the 
tariff.  He  said  that  there  would  be  no  response  to  the  cry 
of  disunion  from  the  State  of  Louisiana.2  Carson,  of  North 
Carolina,  retorted  with  warmth  that  Louisiana  enjoyed  a 
benefit  of  two  millions  from  the  tariff.  President  Jackson 
had  saved  her  from  disunion.3  Burges,  of  Rhode  Island, 
averred  that  the  Southern,  or  anti-protection,  States,  paid 
about  one-fortieth  part  of  the  tax  raised  by  impost,  consid 
ering  that  they  consumed  all  that  they  imported.4  His  ar 
gument  was  based  on  the  fundamental  assumption  that  all 
of  the  Southern  products  which  passed  through  the  hands 
of  Northern  merchants  to  Europe  were  Northern  importa 
tions.  He  declared  that  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  would 
ruin  the  small  manufacturers.5 

Consideration  of  the  measure  continued  in  the  committee 
of  the  whole  from  the  18th  to  the  21st  of  June.    A  number 
of  proposed  amendments  wrere  rej  ected.    Horace 
Everett  insisted  upon  protection  for  the  wool- 
grower  as  the  first  object.6     Among  the  prominent  protec- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3585.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3597. 

*  Thomas,  of  Louisiana,  denied  this  charge,  and  his  statement  was  ac 
cepted  by  Carson.  It  related  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislature  in 
1814.  Ibid.,  p.  3563. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  3621.  6  Ibid.,  p.  3647.  6  Ibid.,  p.  3671. 


224          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

tionist  arguments  were  those  of  Adams,  Stewart,  Dearborn, 
and  Davis.  On  the  other  side,  Cambreleng  was  supported 
Great  heat  of  by  Hoffman  and  Root,  also  of  New  York, 
Swfwuof  IBS?  incidental  protectionists.  Adams  and  Archer 
reported  to  the  came  into  personal  collision,  and  an  angry  col- 
co'mmitter  of  loquy  occurred  between  Carson  and  Sutherland.1 
the  whole.  Louisiana  Representatives  tried  in  vain  to  save 
sugar  from  reduction.2  The  bill  was  reported  from  the  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  on  the  21st  of  June,  with  amendments. 
In  the  House,  various  points  were  raised  by  Edward 
Everett.  "  It  seems  to  me,"  he  remarked,  "  that  this  ques 
tion  of  constitutionality,  even  on  the  nullifying 
principle,  requires  that  the  majority  of  the 
States  should  agree  to  nullify."  McDuffie  had  spoken  of 
the  tyranny  of  a  majority.  Everett  put  what  he  called  a 
harder  question :  "  Suppose  the  minority  is  unreasonable, 
and  denies  the  right  of  the  majority,  shall  they  prevent 
their  exercising  them  ?" 3  His  argument  on  nullification 
was  very  ingenious.  He  drew  a  picture  of  disasters  and 
horrors  which  would  follow  the  secession  of  a  single  State. 
There  would  be  civil  discord,  eternal  border  warfare,  for 
eign  wars  and  alliances.  The  State  which  seceded  would 
bid  farewell  to  republican  government  for  herself  and  more 
likely  for  her  sister  States.  "  It  is  my  firm  conviction,"  he 
A  beautiful  averred,  "  that  the  day  which  takes  any  State 
appeal  for  the  from  this  Union  gives  it  to  the  British  crown." 
He  made  an  impassioned,  beautiful  appeal  for 
the  Union,  and  in  an  address  to  McDufiie  implored  South 
Carolina  "  not  to  leave  us." 4 

A  controversy  arose,  as  in  1828,  between   the  woollen 
manufacturing  and  the  wool-producing  interests.     Amend 
ments  were  offered  by  Davis  and  Adams,  and 

The    wool    m-  J 

terests     again    were  lost.5     An  amendment  providing  a  draw 
back  on  iron  used  in  domestic  industry  was  re 
jected  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  some  of  the  Southern 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3690.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3691. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  3765.  *  Ibid.,  p.  3770.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  3778,  3780. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          225 

low  tariff  men  voting  in  the   negative.     Finally,  on  the 
27th  of  June,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  its  third  reading 
by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-two  to       June27 
sixty-five.     Among  the  yeas  were  Cambreleng, 
Mitchell  of    South    Carolina,  Polk,  and   other   low  tariff 
men ;  and  among  the  nays  were  Choate,  the  Everetts,  Con- 
diet,  Davis,  and  other  protectionists,  voting  with  McDufne 
and  the  great  body  of  the  revenue  reformers. 

McDuffie  concluded  the  debate  on  the  28th  of  June  with 
a  speech  of  great  power.1  He  said  that  his  bill  had  been 
put  aside  unceremoniously,  and  he  analyzed  June  ^ 
the  pending  measure  at  considerable  length  McDuffie  closes 
and  with  rigorous  logic.  He  showed  that  the 
reduction,  under  the  original  bill,  according  to  the  estimate 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  would  have  been  four 
million  one  hundred  and  seventy-seven  thousand  dollars, 
without  an  increase  of  importations.  The  alterations  made 
would  increase  the  amount  of  reduction  to  four  million  six 
hundred  and  twenty-four  thousand  dollars.  The  reduction 
on  the  entire  list  of  imports  received  in  exchange  for 
Southern  exports  was  only  eight  hundred  and  forty-four 
thousand  dollars.  But  these  reductions  were  much  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  other  provisions  of  the  bill  rela 
tive  to  cash  duties  and  diminished  credits  on  these  protected 
articles.  Assuming  that  such  imports  amounted  to  twenty- 
five  millions,  we  had,  he  said,  one  million  two  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars  as  the  increase  of  the  burdens  of  the 
protecting  duties  to  be  placed  in  contrast  with  a  nominal 
reduction  of  four  hundred  and  seventeen  thousand  dollars; 
it  resulted,  therefore,  that  there  was  an  increase  of  burden 
to  the  South  of  one  million  four  hundred  and  six  thousand 
dollars.  The  inequality,  he  contended,  was  greatly  in 
creased  by  the  injustice  exaggerated  by  the  other  provisions 
of  the  bill.  The  foreign  exchanges  of  the  North  were  re 
lieved  to  the  extent  of  three  million  seven  hundred  and 
eighty  thousand  dollars.  He  remarked  with  what  keen 


1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  3809-3830. 
15 


226          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

sagacity  the  gentlemen  of  the  North  could  perceive  the 
benefits  of  free  trade  when  the  products  of  their  own  in 
dustry  constituted  the  basis  of  it.1  On  the  other  hand,  he 
observed :  "I  will  venture  to  affirm,  sir,  not  only  that  the 
peculiar  burdens  of  the  South  are  undiminished  by  this 
bill,  but  that  the  protection  which  it  gives  to  all  the  various 
classes  of  manufactures  is  decidedly  greater  than  that  which 
they  received  under  the  tariff  of  1828.  Can  any  one  be  so 
blind  as  not  to  see  that  the  reduction,  or,  more  properly,  the 
repeal,  of  the  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  dye-stuffs,  manufacturing 
materials,  and  on  most  of  the  unprotected  articles,  will 
operate  as  an  additional  protection  to  the  Northern  manu 
factures  ?  There  are  two  modes  of  giving  this  protection 
to  the  manufacturing  States :  the  one  consists  in  imposing 
duties  upon  such  articles  as  they  make  themselves;  the 
other  in  taking  off  or  diminishing  duties  on  such  articles  as 
they  consume  and  do  not  make  at  home,  but  import  from 
abroad  and  exchange  for  some  of  their  own  domestic  pro 
ductions."  He  thus  replied  to  Everett's  argument  that  if 
the  cotton  planter  was  the  producer  of  the  manufactures 
obtained  for  his  cotton,  he  could  only  be  so  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  might  be  said  that  the  consumer  of  those  manufac 
tures  was  the  producer  of  them :  "  The  cotton  planters  pro 
duce  imported  manufactures  by  an  exchange  abroad,  and 
upon  this  exchange  the  protecting  duty  is  levied ;  whereas, 
all  other  consumers  produce  these  manufactures  by  a  domes 
tic  exchange  upon  which  no  duty  is  levied." 2  He  said  that 
his  argument  that  protection  diminished  the  value  of  Amer 
ican  cotton  had  been  misrepresented.  That  argument  re 
ferred  exclusively  to  the  value  of  the  article  here.  He 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  and 
those  with  whom  he  acted,  often  maintained  that  the  pro 
tecting  duties  had  the  effect  of  diminishing  the  prices  of 
protected  articles  in  the  United  States.  To  avoid  the  ob 
vious  inference  that  this  would  throw  the  whole  burden  of 
the  duty  upon  the  American  producers  of  imported  manu- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3813.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3817. 


THE  DERATE   OF  1830  AND    OTHER  EVENTS.          227 

factures,  the  planters,  they  alleged,  he  said,  that  the  burden 
of  the  duty  was  thrown  upon  the  foreign  producers,  the 
manufacturers  abroad.  McDufSe  argued  that  this  could 
only  be  done  by  a  general  reduction  of  price  throughout  the 
world.  Our  duty,  fifty  per  cent.,  on  eight  millions  of  Eng 
lish  cotton  manufactures  imported  into  this  country  out  of 
her  total  product  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions,  could 
not  have  the  effect  stated  on  prices.1 

The  bill  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  as  amended, 
passed  the  House  on  the  same  day  by  the  vote  of  one  hun 
dred  and  thirty-two  yeas  to  sixty-five  nays.2  Cer-  passage  of  the 
tain  protected  interests,  not  satisfied  with  the 
amount  of  protection  extended  by  the  measure,  voted  with 
the  straight-out  foes  of  protection.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
number  of  well-known  low  tariff  members  supported  the 
bill  because  its  professed  object  was  reduction.  Among  the 
ayes  were  Archer,  Bell,  Cambreleng,  Drayton,  Polk,  and 
Wayne,  anti-protectionists;  and  among  the  noes,  Bates, 
Burges,  Choate,  Condict,  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Denny,, 
the  Everetts,  Stewart,  Storrs,  and  Watmough,  protectionists. 

The  subject  of  the  tariff  came  up  in  the  Senate  on 
Smith's  resolution,  offered  December  13,  to  the  effect  that 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  directed  to  December  13. 
furnish  the  Senate  with  his  projet  of  a  bill  re-  In  the  Senate- 
ducing  duties  in  conformity  with  suggestions  in  his  annual 
report.3  Tyler  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  securing  a  favor 
able  report  upon  it  from  the  Finance  Committee.  In  his 
explanation  he  said  that  a  great  crisis  had  arrived.  On  the 
17th  of  the  same  month  Poindexter  introduced  a  resolution 
authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  report,  with  as 
little  delay  as  possible,  a  detailed  statement  of  the  articles 
of  foreign  growth  or  manufacture  on  which,  in  his  opinion, 
the  existing  rate  of  duties  ought  to  be  reduced,  specifying 
the  amount  of  reduction  on  each  article  separately,  so  as  to 
produce  the  result  of  an  aggregate  reduction  of  the  revenue 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  3819.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3831. 

3  Ibid.,  ix.,  Part  I.,  pp.  6,  10. 


228          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

of  six  millions  of  dollars  on  such  manufactures  as  are  classed 
as  protective.     The  resolution  also  provided  for  a  list  of  ar 
ticles  essential  to  our  national  independence  in  time  of  war, 
to  be  exempt  from  the  proposed  reduction.1     After  debate, 
the  Senate  decided,  by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  fif 
teen,   that   it   would   consider   the   resolution.2 
One  of  the  notable  speeches  of  the  day  was  that  of  Mangum, 
of  North  Carolina,  who  spoke  indignantly  of  "  the  oppres 
sions  which  by  party  and  unprincipled  combina 
tions  had  'been  practised  upon  their  brethren 
of  the  South."     He  opposed,  as  did  Poindexter,  calling  on 
the  Executive  or  any  head  of  department  for  a  bill  embrac- 
smith,  and     ing  such  momentous  interests.     The  opposite 
view  was  advocated  by  Smith,  who  contended 
that  the  object  was  to  secure  facts,  not  opinions.     The  de 
bate  continued  on  the  3d  and  4th  of  January.     Holmes  re 
plied  to  Mangum,  who,  he  said,  had  sounded  an 
alarm.     He  argued  that  a  principle  should  not 
be  surrendered  under  a  threat  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.3 
"  Supposing,"  he  illustrated,  "  New  York,  our  buxom  sister, 
to  take  it  into  her  head  to  set  herself  down  upon  her  sover- 
A  homely  uius-    eignty;  sir,  strong  as  she  is,  I  would  get  a  rod 
and  whip  her  up,  tell  her  to  leave  off  crying,  and 
promise  never  to  do  so  again.     Then  I  would  enquire  into 
the  grounds  of  her  complaints,  and  do  her  justice."     There 
were  several   cases  in  which  the  North  might  apply  the 
Southern  doctrine  inconveniently  for  the  South :  one  as  to 
the  public  lands;    another  as  to  the  rendition  of  fugitive 
slaves.     He   forewarned   gentlemen   that  this   doctrine  of 
"  reserved  right"  when  applied  to  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave  might  produce  a  state  of  things  too  terrific  for  descrip 
tion.     The  slaves  in  the  South  would  soon  learn  to  turn  the 
principles  of  nullification  to  suit  themselves.     He  explained 
that  this  expression  was  intended  to  mean  after  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  when  "  the  free  States  would  repose  upon 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  8.  3  Ibid.,  p.  16. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  55. 


THE  DEBATE   OF  1830  AND   OTHER  EVENTS.          229 

their  sovereignty.  They  would  not  interpose  if  they  could, 
and,  they  could  not  if  they  would." x  He  contradicted  Man- 
gum's  assertion  that  there  was  an  unprincipled  combination 
against  the  South,  and  asserted  that  the  South  would  always, 
as  in  the  past,  rule  the  North.  Several  amendments  were 
rejected,  and  after  a  verbal  alteration  to  make  the  resolution 
express  what  the  Secretary  actually  said,  it  was  laid  on  the 
table.2 

The  bill  of  1832  passed  the  Senate  on  the  12th  of  July, 
by  a  vote  of  ayes  thirty-two,  noes  sixteen,  and    Final  passage, 
was  approved  by  the  President  on  the  14th  of    July  12> 
the  same  month.3 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  58. 

1  Consideration  of  these  resolutions  was  defeated  on  the  llth  of  January. 
Ibid.,  p.  60. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  1293. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

NULLIFICATION   AND    THE    COMPROMISE    OF    1833. 

MEANTIME,  events  were  hurrying  forward  in  South  Caro 
lina.     In  his  message  to  the  Legislature,  Governor  Hamilton 
rejected  the  tariff  of  1832  as  a  compromise. 
1832    not    re-    He  declared  that  it  levied  three-fourths  of  the 

SSfiJ"  federal  revenue  On  the  industry  of  the  South- 
compromise  ern  States,  and  that  the  right  to  pass  a  tariff 
for  protection  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  "  After  ten  years  of  suffer 
ing  and  remonstrance,"  he  continued,  "  we  have  at  length 
arrived  at  least  at  the  end  of  our  hopes."  He  recommended 
the  calling  of  a  convention  in  obedience  to  public  sentiment, 
and  that  all  other  matters  be  abstained  from.  The  ratifica 
tion  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Convention  bill  was  followed 
•  i  m  over  ^v  great  rejoicing.  Artillery  was  fired;  brass 
the  convention  bands  played  (by  mistake)  "Yankee  Doodle," 
followed  quickly  by  "Wha'll  be  king  but 
Charlie  ?"  l  But  in  the  address  of  the  Union  members,  they 
said  of  the  bill  that  it  was  a  measure  which  they  esteemed 
to  be  destructive  of  the  Constitution  and  ruinous  to  the  peo 
ple.  They  argued  that  the  decision  of  cases  under  the  rev 
enue  laws  was  confided  expressly  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  by  the  Constitution.  The  committee  of 
the  Union  party  announced  that  opposition  to  the  progress 
of  nullification  was  hopeless,  and  they  offered  the  counsel 
that  no  ticket  should  be  run,  regarding  it  as  unimportant 
whether  or  not  there  was  a  full  representation  of  the  party's 
strength  in  the  convention.2 


1  Niles's  Register,  last  half  of  1832,  pp.  173-175. 

2  Ibid.,  November  10,  1832,  p.  175. 
230 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     231 

There  was  no  opposition  in  Charleston  to  Hayne  and  the 
other  nullification  candidates.  The  nullifiers  without  diffi 
culty  carried  the  State  convention.  The  con-  , 

J  The     nullifiers 

vention  assembled  at  Columbia  on  the  19th  of  carry  the  state 
November,  ex-Governor  Miller  in  the  chair.  £"'£££ 
Governor  Hamilton  was  chosen  permanent  pres-  ings-  Novem- 
ident  of  the  body.  In  his  opening  address 
Hamilton  said :  "  It  is  scarcely  a  solecism  to  say  that  here 
are  the  people.  This  is  the  concentration  of  their  sover 
eignty.  .  .  .  We  have  the  incontestable  power  of  a  sover 
eign  State."  He  also  averred  that  his  prayer  was  for  the 
establishment  by  the  deliberations  of  that  body  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  their  own  people,  and  with  those  to  give 
stability  to  the  .Union.  On  the  succeeding  day  a  committee 
of  twenty-one,  of  which  Judge  Colcock  was  chairman,  and 
Hayne,  McDuffie,  Harper,  Miller,  Pinckney,  Barnwell,  and 
several  other  distinguished  men  were  members,  was  ap 
pointed  to  consider  the  acts  of  Congress  regarded  as  revolu 
tionary,  and  to  propose  a  mode  of  redress.1  This  committee, 
through  Hayne,  reported  on  the  24th  of  Novem 
ber  an  "  ordinance  to  provide  for  arresting  the 
operation  of  certain  acts  of  the  Congress  of  the  (°.f 
United  States  purporting  to  be  laws  laying  duties 
and  imposts  on  the  importation  of  foreign  commodities." 
There  were  six  paragraphs.  The  first  was  a  preamble  stat 
ing  grievances — the  passage  of  "  various  acts  .  .  .  intended 
for  the  protection  of  domestic  manufactures."  The  second 
was  as  follows :  "  We,  therefore,  the  people  of  the  State  of 
South  Carolina,  in  convention  assembled,  do  declare  and 
ordain,  and  it  is  hereby  declared  and  ordained,  that  the  sev 
eral  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  purporting,"  etc.,2  "  are  unauthorized  by  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  and  violate  the  true  meaning 
and  intent  thereof,  and  are  null,  void,  and  no  law,  nor  bind 
ing  upon  this  State,  its  officers  or  citizens."  "  All  promises, 

1  Niks,  p.  219. 

2  The  acts  of  1828  and  1832  are  cited.     Official  Proceedings,  p.  47. 


232          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

contracts,  and  obligations  made  or  entered  into,"  are  de 
clared  to  be  "  utterly  null  and  void."  The  third  proposition 
sets  forth  the  unlawfulness  of  enforcing  payment  of  duties 
by  the  State  or  United  States  authorities,  and  asserts  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  "  to  adopt  such  means  and 
pass  such  acts  as  may  be  necessary  to  give  full  effect  to  this 
Ordinance  and  to  prevent  the  enforcement  and  arrest  the 
operation  of  the  said  acts  (of  the  Congress)  within  the 
limits  of  this  State  from  and  after  the  1st  day  of  February 
next."  The  fourth  paragraph  was  to  prevent  appeals  to  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court ;  the  fifth,  to  provide  an  oath 
to  obey  the  Ordinance,  to  be  taken  by  officers  under  the 
State  government.  The  final  declaration  was  a  threat  of 
secession  by  the  State  if  any  measure  of  coercion  should  be 
adopted  by  the  federal  government. 

The  convention  was  orderly  and  dignified.     It  distributed 

among  the  great  leaders  of  the  movement  the  labors  and 

accorded  the  prominence  appropriate  for  each. 

The       conven-  .  -ii 

tion.  its  lead-  To  Harper  was  assigned  the  preparation  of  the 
Ordinance,  to  McDuffie  the  address  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  to  Turnbull  that  to  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  to  Hayne  the  general  exposition  of  principles. 
The  States  in  McDuffie's  address  are  named  separately, — as, 
"  To  the  people  of  Massachusetts,"  etc.1  In  these  papers 
the  whole  question  of  variance  between  South  Carolina  and 
the  federal  government  is  discussed  elaborately.  It  was  de 
clared  in  one  of  them  that  in  the  event  of  South  Carolina 
"being  driven  out  of  the  Union,"  all  of  the  planting  and 
some  of  the  Western  States  "  would  follow  by  almost  abso 
lute  necessity." 2  Hayne's  exposition  was  full  on  the  subject 
of  the  tariff,  and  defined  clearly  the  difference  between  an 
incidentally  protecting  and  a  protective  tariff.  It  dwelt 
upon  the  sectional  character  of  the  latter.  A  power  to  regu 
late  commerce,  it  was  declared,  did  not  confer  a  power  to 
regulate  manufactures  and  agriculture.  As  early  as  1820 


1  Niks,  p.  231 ;  Official  Proceedings,  pp.  54,  68. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  234. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1883.     233 

South  Carolina  had  protested  in  memorials  and  petitions  to 
the  Congress.  Georgia,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Missis 
sippi,  and  Alabama  had  earnestly  remonstrated  and  warned.1 
The  convention  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  presi 
dent,  or,  in  the  case  of  his  death,  of  a  committee  appointed 
for  the  purpose.2 

The  theory  of  nullification  as  it  was  now  put  in  practice 
in  South  Carolina  was  to  be  judged  and  condemned  both 
by  those  who  held  and  those  who  reprobated  Popular  judg. 
State  rights  doctrines.  Governor  Lumpkin,  of  ment  °n  the 

.       .       ,  .         .    .      ,  ,i       T        • >  i         actionof  South 

Georgia,  in  his  winter  s  message  to  the  Legisla-  Carolina. 
ture  of  that  State,  recalled  its  conflict  with  what  L  IntheSoutl1- 
he  called  "federal  usurpation,"  but  remarked:  "Nothing 
has  transpired  to  lessen  attachment  or  diminish  our  confi 
dence  in  the  good  system  of  government  under  which  we 
live."  He  said  further :  "  I  believe  nullification  to  be  un 
sound,  dangerous,  and  delusive  in  practice  as  well  as 
theory."3  Governor  Stokes,  of  North  Carolina,  rejoiced 
in  his  annual  message  that  the  people  of  that  State  had 
"  wisely  avoided  any  interference  calculated  to  disturb  tran- 
quility."  "  It  is  hoped,"  he  continued,  "  that  we  shall  cling 
to  the  union  of  the  States  as  now  connected." 4  In  Alabama, 
where  there  were  more  adherents  to  the  doctrine  of  nullifi 
cation  than  in  any  other  State  except  South  Carolina,  Gov 
ernor  Gayle  spoke  of  nullification  as  "this  deplorable  ex 
periment  .  .  .  growing  into  an  evil  not  less  to  be  deprecated 
than  the  tariff  itself." 5  The  Senate  of  Tennessee,  only  one 
member  not  voting,  denounced  nullification  as  a  heresy,  but 
endorsed  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798  and  the  commen 
tary  thereon  of  Madison.  Indeed,  in  the  States  of  Tennes 
see  and  Kentucky  the  doctrine  received  no  countenance,  and 
in  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana  it 
was  generally  opposed.6  By  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  two 

1  Nttes,  p.  237. 

*  Official  Proceedings,  pp.  79,  81.     After  prayers.     The  31st  of  January 
was  appointed  to  be  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer. 
3  NUes,  vol.  xliii.,  pp.  206-208.  4  Ibid.,  p.  219. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  220.  6  Ibid.,  December  1,  p.  209. 


234          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

to  fifty-one  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Georgia 
Legislature  adopted  a  resolution,  which  subsequently  passed 
the  Senate,  declaring  that  nullification  was  abhorred,  and 
that  it  was  deemed  a  paramount  duty  to  warn  their  fellow- 
citizens  against  adopting  the  mischievous  policy  of  South 
Carolina.1  In  the  same  State  an  anti-tariff  convention  was 
held,  at  which  the  division  of  sentiment  was  so  sharp  that 
fifty-three  of  the  more  moderate  members,  headed  by  For- 
syth,  seceded.  The  residue,  sixty-eight  in  number,  adopted 
resolutions  for  a  general  Southern  convention,  but  postponed 
the  adoption  of  any  more  definite  plan.2  A  committee  of 
the  Union  party  of  South  Carolina  was  present. 

In  the  North  there  was  no  sympathy  with  any  demonstra 
tion  against  the  Union,  for  the  whole  situation  of  affairs, 
economical   and   political,  had   changed.     But 

2.  In  the  North.     ,,  .  .   .,      ^  i        ,-vx 

there  was  in  some  quarters  a  spirit  of  hostility 
to  the  tariff  only  less  violent  than  in  the  States  of  the  South 
which  refused  to  embrace  South  Carolina's  proffered  remedy. 
Union  meetings  were  held  in  Boston  and  New  York.  Web 
ster  and  Harrison  Gray  Otis  were  among  the  speakers  at  the 
former  place.  The  Tammany  Society  of  New  York  also, 
wrhile  expressing  sympathy  with  their  "  Southern  brethren," 
applauded  the  course  of  the  President.3  At  a  somewhat 
earlier  day  Webster  had  spoken  at  Worcester,  Massachu 
setts,  accepting  nullification  as  a  dismemberment  of  the 
Union,  but  denouncing  the  military  language  of  the  Presi 
dent's  friends.  These  indiscreet  politicians  had  talked  of 
using  an  armed  force  before  the  power  of  the  civil  authority 
had  been  exerted,  and  against  this  Webster  protested  with 
all  of  his  eloquence.4  But  the  protectionist  press  had  from 
the  early  development  of  the  policy  of  nullification  referred 

1  N'Oes,  pp.  251,  287. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  221.     Forsyth's  party  withdrew,  because,  as  they  alleged,  the 
convention  refused  adequate  scrutiny  into  its  authority.     In  an  address 
which  they  issued  the  seceders  claimed  that  twenty  counties  were  unrep 
resented.     Berrien,  of  the  part  of  the  body  which  remained,  reprobated 
the  nullification  doctrine. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  293-295. 

4  Ibid.,  November  17,  p.  186.    The  speech  was  delivered  on  October  12. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1S33.    235 

to  it  as  "a  course  of  evil  and  dishonor."1  Substantially 
protectionist,  the  North  could  not  only  not  approve  resist 
ance  to  the  government  under  the  circumstances,  but  must 
of  necessity  support  the  policy  which  had  produced  the 
Southern  opposition  to  the  conduct  of  the  government. 

Meantime,  some  statesmen  of  the  old  State  rights  school 
broached  the  theory  of  a  general  convention  to  alter  the 
Federal    Constitution.     To   a   local   committee    oldschool 
who  waited  upon  him  to  ascertain  his  views,  ex-    state  rights 

«  /-M          n      i          -1,1,1        ^  1,1-       men  propose  a 

Secretary  Crawford  said  that  he  favored  this  constitutional 
policy.  His  idea  was  to  ascertain  what  the  convention- 
strength  of  the  respective  tariff  and  anti-tariff  elements  was : 
then,  he  averred,  if  the  former  refused  to  modify  the  tariff, 
we,  meaning  the  Southern  States,  would  see  the  necessity 
for  taking  ultimate  measures.  He  remarked  further,  with 
the  caution  of  the  experienced  politician,  that  if  the  num 
bers  and  population  of  the  States  disposed  to  secede  and 
form  a  new  confederation  were  not  sufficient  for  self-protec 
tion,  he  would  deem  it  unwise  to  separate.  Better  submit, 
was  his  argument,  to  exactions  at  home  than  to  tyranny 
abroad.  Crawford's  recommendations,  therefore,  were 
these :  A  general  convention,  if  possible ;  if  not,  a  Southern 
convention,  with  a  separate  confederacy,  if  that  seemed 
practicable;  in  no  event  nullification,  which  he  rejected  as 
not  being  a  constitutional,  peaceable  measure,  and  not  being 
even  a  suitable  revolutionary  measure.2  The  extreme  State 
rights  party  laughed  at  this  effort  to  secure  a  The  ro  g._ 
change  of  the  tariff  policy  from  a  large  major-  tion  derided  by 
ity  in  favor  of  that  policy  and  interested  vitally 
in  its  preservation.  There  might  have  been  some  wisdom 
in  the  alternative  proposed,  a  Southern  convention,  if  the 
purpose  had  been  to  resort  to  ultimate  measures,  and  if,  as 


1  This  is  the  expression  of  the  Boston  Advertiser,  August  3,  1832.     But 
there  were  earlier  utterances  of  the  kind. 

2  Alluding  to  the  alleged  peacefulness  and  constitutionality  of  nullifica 
tion,  he  said  :  "  I  verily  believe  that  no  man  in  his  senses  ever  believed 
it  to  be  so."    Niks,  p.  185. 


236          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Crawford  suggested,  the  resources  for  self-preservation  were 
in  existence.  In  the  state  of  parties  and  on  the  issues  be 
fore  the  public  at  that  time,  such  a  powerful  combination  of 
States  was  not  feasible,  and  no  very  serious  consideration 
was  given  to  the  proposition,  however  respectable  the  states 
men  who  originated  or  supported  it.  General  Jackson  was 
the  national  hero  of  the  hour.  Even  in  Virginia,  by  whose 
sturdy  old  Republicans  he  was  not  loved,  there  was  no  party 
sufficiently  strong  to  overturn  his  ascendancy.  The  senti 
ment  of  Union  was  superadded  to  practical  interest  in  some 
other  quarters,  and  everywhere,  except  in  a  few  localities, 
South  Carolina  and  Alabama  and  among  the  special  ad 
mirers  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  other  Southern  States,  there  was 
either  repugnance  or  coldness  towards  the  doctrine  that  a 
State  could  remain  in  the  Union  and  at  the  same  time 
nullify  its  laws  and  resist  its  authority. 

The  South  Carolina  Legislature  convened  on  the  27th  of 
November.  Governor  Hamilton's  message  stated  the  ac- 
November  27  count  between  the  State  and  the  United  States.1 
The  south  car-  The  latter  claimed  a  further  sum  of  sixty  thou- 
ture.  Gover-  sand  dollars  interest.  Reviewing  briefly  the 
nor-s  message.  action  of  the  Congress,  he  said  that  the  die  had 
been  at  last  cast,  and  South  Carolina  had  at  length  appealed 
to  her  ulterior  sovereignty  as  a  member  of  the  confederacy, 
and  planted  herself  upon  her  reserved  rights.  He  defined  the 
measure  of  legislation  which  they  had  to  employ  at  the  crisis 
to  be,  "  the  precise  amount  of  such  enactments  as  may  be 
necessary  to  render  it  utterly  impossible  to  collect  within  our 
limits  the  duties  imposed  by  protective  tariffs  thus  nullified." 
He  refrained  from  suggesting  details,  but  proposed  that  the 
Governor  be  authorized  to  issue  certificates  of  clearance  to 
vessels  outward  bound  in  case  the  collectors  refused  to  do 
so.  Noticing  the  rumors  that  coercion  might  be  resorted  to, 
he  remarked  that  such  threats  were  once  "  officially  pro- 
mulged,"  and  that  "  we  must  be  prepared  for  this  alterna 
tive."  He  therefore  recommended  a  revision  of  the  militia 

1  Niles,  December  15,  p.  215. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1838.     237 

laws,  the  details  of  a  volunteer  system,  and  provisions  for 
mounting  heavy  ordnance ;  for  a  quartermaster  service,  and 
that  the  President  be  requested  to  vacate  the  citadel  at 
Charleston,  occupied  at  the  joint  instance  of  the  city  and  the 
State,  in  order  to  make  room  for  State  troops  and  muni 
tions.  "  I  cannot,  however,  but  think,"  he  said,  in  conclu 
sion,  "  that  in  a  calm  and  dispassionate  review  by  Congress 
.  .  .  that  the  arbitration  by  a  call  of  a  convention  of  all  the 
States,  which  we  sincerely  and  anxiously  seek  and  desire, 
will  be  accorded  to  us.  To  resort  to  force  is  at  once  to 
prefer  a  dissolution  to  its  preservation."  l 

On  the  day  of  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  the  conven 
tion  enacted  a  replevin  law.2  The  purpose  in  part  was  to 
carry  the  Ordinance  into  effect,  and  it  was  one 
of  several  measures  intended  to  thwart  the  fed- 
eral  government  in  the  execution  of  revenue  measures  by 

°  South  Carolina. 

legislation.  This  act  was  to  take  effect  on  the 
1st  of  February,  1833.  It  enabled  the  owner  or  owners  of 
goods  seized  by  United  States  officers  and  held  for  the  pay 
ment  of  duties  to  recover  such  articles  by  giving  bond. 
The  process  was  through  State  officers  and  the  State  courts. 
The  punishment  provided  in  Section  10  of  this  act  for 
attempts  to  recapture  goods  so  replevined  was  a  fine  of  not 
more  than  ten  thousand  dollars  nor  less  than  three  thousand 
dollars,  and  imprisonment  of  not  more  than  two  years  and 
not  less  than  one  year ;  besides,  the  offender  was  liable  to 
indictment  for  other  offences  committed  in  the  act.  The 
keepers  of  jails  were  to  be  fined  for  imprisoning  any  persons 
arrested  under  the  collection  act  of  the  United  States,  and  fines 
were  also  imposed  in  other  sections  for  renting  a  house  to 
be  used  temporarily  for  such  a  purpose,  and  imprisonment 
added  as  a  further  deterrent.  This  act  and  the  convention 
test  oath  and  militia  laws  passed  by  the  Legislature  were 
deemed  necessary  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  State  in  the 

1  The  message  bore  date  November  27,  the  day  of  the  assembling 
of  the  Legislature. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  Twenty-second  Congress,  Appendix  ;  Niks' s  Reg 
ister,  vol.  xliii.,  p.  327. 


238          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

delicate  crisis  it  had  invoked.  The  test  oath  was  to  be 
taken  by  all  officers  of  the  State  save  members  of  the  Legis 
lature.  By  the  militia  act  the  Governor  was  authorized  to 
call  out  and  organize  corps  of  volunteers  to  be  formed  from 
the  body  of  the  militia.  Other  acts  for  public  security  were 
passed  at  this  session  of  the  Legislature. 

Under  the  authority  of  all  these  ordinances  and  laws  an 

armed  force  consisting  of  about  twenty  thousand  men  was 

assumed   to  be   prepared  for   action.1     Orders 

The  armament  *      A 

in  south  caro-  were  issued  by  General  Hamilton,  the  com 
mander,  for  the  disposition  of  troops  and  muni 
tions,  and  the  State  of  South  Carolina  bore  the  appearance 
of  a  vast  encampment.  In  the  border  States  certain  zealous 
friends  of  the  nullification  movement  formed  themselves 
into  armed  companies  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  South 
Carolina's  aid  in  the  event  of  war. 

The  administration  at  Washington  was  never  more  vigi 
lant  than  it  was  then  at  any  period  in  the  country's  history, 
vigilance  of  At  the  head  of  affairs  was  a  veteran  of  many 
the  President.  wars?  W]1O  always  became  cool  at  the  moment  of 
actual  peril,  and  whose  resources  for  such  an  occasion  were 
almost  infinite.  Weeks  before  the  meeting  of  the  conven 
tion  in  South  Carolina  "  confidential"  instructions  were 
issued  from  the  Treasury  Department  to  the  Collector  of 
Customs  at  Charleston.2  It  was  enjoined  upon  him  to  dis 
play  "  energy  and  vigilance,"  and  he  was  reminded  of  the 
"  delicacy  and  importance  of  the  crisis."  He  was  authorized 
to  employ  such  revenue  cutters  as  were  in  his  district,  and 
also  such  boats  and  inspectors  as  he  thought  were  necessary. 
Indeed,  the  Government  sent  to  him  at  once  an  additional 
cutter.  The  District  Attorney  of  the  United  States  for  the 

1 1  have  found  some  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  extent  of  South  Caro 
lina's  military  preparation.  Loose  newspaper  statement  makes  the  array 
as  above,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  so  large  a  number  ever  had  arms  in 
hand.  On  the  1st  of  April,  1833,  there  was  a  grand  closing  parade  at 
Charleston.  The  Mercury  says  thirteen  hundred  volunteers  were  present, 
of  whom  only  five  hundred  were  uniformed. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  Twenty-second  Congress,  Appendix,  "this  refer 
ence  holds  for  the  subjoined  military  and  naval  orders  in  the  text  above. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE    OF  1833.     239 

district  of  South  Carolina  was  ordered  to  co-operate  with 
the  collector  in  measures  for  the  execution  of  the  laws. 
Nor,  at  this  early  period  in  the  conflict,  did  President  Jack 
son  stop  at  civic  preparation.  A  military  man,  who  before 
that  had  asserted  the  rights,  or  supposed  rights,  of  the 
United  States  with  arms  in  his  hands,  where  a  civilian  would 
have  used  the  more  peaceful  process  of  the  courts  or  nego 
tiation,  he  saw  the  advantage  of  speedy  move 
ment.  Whilst  Governor  Hayne  was  waiting  for  tration  makes 


the  Convention  and  the  Legislature  to  clothe  him    "jjjjjj17  prepa~ 

with  the  power  to  organize  and  arm  the  militia, 

the  President,  believing  himself  vested  with  all  power  under 

the  Constitution  and  laws  to  protect  the  interests  of  the 

United  States  in  South  Carolina,  took  steps  three  weeks  be 

fore  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification  to  use  force 

at  least  for  the  purpose  of  resistance.     Orders 

were  issued  on  November  6  and  7  to  the  commandant  at 

Fortress  Monroe  to  send  two  companies  of  artillery  to  Fort 

Moultrie,  in  Charleston  harbor.     Other  troops 

with  pieces  of  artillery  were  dispatched  thither 

a  month  later.1     But  the  most  significant  action  was  the 

sending  to  the  scene  of  trouble  the  commander  of  the  East- 

ern   Military  Department,  Major   General  Winfield  Scott. 

He   was    directed    to    repair    immediately    to 

Charleston  and  examine  everything  connected    General  ergcott 


with  the  fortifications.     But  while  he  was  given 

Charleston. 

authority  to  strengthen  the  forts  and  reinforce 
the  garrisons,  he  was  to  take  no  step  except  in  what  related 
to  the  immediate  defence  and  security  of  the  posts  without 
the  order  and  concurrence  of  the  Collector  of  the  Port  and 
the  District  Attorney.  Naval  orders  were  issued  on  the  12th 
of  December,  1832,  to  the  commanders  of  two  vessels  —  the 
"  Experiment"  and  the  "  Natchez,"  —  to  sail  as  soon  as  prac 
ticable  for  Charleston,  and  Commodore  Jesse  D.  Elliott  was 
assigned  to  the  command  of  the  station.  The  orders  to  the 


1  In  all  there  were  ten  companies  of  these  troops,  of  which  three  were 
left  after  the  troubles  were  composed.     Charleston  Courier ,  April  12. 


240          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

commanders  of  vessels  were  :  "  Your  acts  are  to  be  confined 
entirely  to  the  defensive."  The  military  commandant  in  the 
harbor,  Brevet  Major  Heileman,  was  instructed 
as  early  as  October  29  to  be  vigilant,  in  order  to 
prevent  surprise.  The  President  was  a  Southerner,  and  well 
knew  the  impetuosity  of  Southern  character.  But  there 
was  no  danger  until  after  the  necessary  constitutional  forms 
had  been  observed,  whatever  threats  may  have  been  made 
by  irresponsible  parties,  or  reported  to  the  President  as  hav 
ing  been  uttered.  In  order  to  preserve  the  continuity  of 
this  part  of  the  narrative,  let  us  anticipate  what  followed  in 
the  Congress.  General  Scott  made  his  head-quarters,  for 
reasons  of  a  strategic  nature,  at  Savannah  instead  of  Charles 
ton.  From  the  former  city  he  could  watch  the  movements 
at  Augusta  and  on  the  Savannah,  and  be  prepared  to  meet 
the  exigency  which  would  arise  upon  an  invasion  of  South 
Carolina  from  Georgia.  Indeed,  learning  that  an  attempt 
was  to  be  made  to  seize  the  United  States  arsenal  at  Augusta, 
he  strengthened  the  hands  of  the  commandant,  Colonel 
Twiggs,  and  secured  that  important  point.  But  while  the 
administration  at  first  approved  of  Savannah  as  "  the  proper 
place,"  upon  General  Scott's  statement,  for  the  head-quarters, 
he  was  ordered  on  the  24th  of  January,  and  again  on  the 
26th,  to  go  to  Charleston  before  the  end  of  the  month.  He 
there  took  strong  measures  for  meeting  and  overcoming  the 
military  preparations  of  the  South  Carolinians.1 

The  President  answered  the  proceedings  in  South  Caro 

lina  by  a  proclamation,  issued  on  the  10th  of  December.2   It 

was  a  remarkable  document,  combining  all  the 

procTmation      vigor  and  courage  of  "  Old  Hickory"  and  the 


leSal  subt^ety  and  Federal  party  principles 
of  Edward  Livingston  and  Louis  McLane.3  It 
preached  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  indissolubility  of  the  Union  as  strongly 

1  The  grouping  of  these  events  anticipates  other  parts  of  the  narrative. 

2  State  Papers,  Register  of  Debates  ;  Niles,  pp.  260-264. 

8  Of  the  two,  McLane  only  had  been  a  member  of  the  Federal  party. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     241 

as  Webster  ever  asserted  it  or  Story  argued  it,  except  that  it 
seemed  to  admit  that  the  Constitution  was  in  some  respects 
a  compact  between  the  States,  and  not  entirely  a  government 
set  up  by  one  act  of  one  people.  "  We  are,"  it  said,  "  one 
people  in  the  choice  of  President  and  Yice-President.  Rep 
resentatives,  when  chosen,  are  the  representatives  of  the 
United  States."  The  deduction  was  thus  expressed :  "  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  then  forms  a  government, 
not  a  league ;  and  whether  it  be  formed  by  compact  between 
the  States  or  in  any  other  manner  its  character  is  the  same. 
Secession  destroys  the  unity  of  a  nation."  The  proclama 
tion  taught,  indeed,  that  secession  might  be  morally  justified 
by  the  extremity  of  oppression,  like  any  other  revolutionary 
act ;  but  it  was  insisted  that  to  call  it  a  constitutional  right 
was  to  confound  the  meaning  of  terms.  The  advocates  of 
it  were  either  self-deceived  grossly  or  they  sought  to  deceive 
others.  The  unity  of  the  people  was  inferred  from  acts  of 
the  united  colonies.  "  In  paternal  language,"  and  with 
"  paternal  feeling,"  the  appeal  is  made  to  "  Fellow-citizens 
of  my  native  State;"1  and  he  admonishes  them  also,  "as 
the  first  magistrate  of  our  common  country,  not  to  incur  the 
penalty  of  its  laws,"  for  "the  laws  of  the  United  States 
must  be  executed;"  he  had  "  no  discretionary  power  on  the 
subject," — his  duty  was  "  emphatically  pronounced  in  the 
Constitution."  He  asserted  that  there  could  be  no  peacable 
resistance.  "  Disunion,"  he  declared,  "  disunion  by  armed 
force  is  treason."  Near  the  close  of  this  long  proclamation 
the  President  appeals  in  fervid  terms  to  "  Fellow-citizens  of 
the  United  States."  "  The  Great  Kuler  of  Nations"  is  in 
voked  in  conclusion.  The  tremendous  document  was  signed 
by  the  President,  Andrew  Jackson,  and  by  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Edward  Livingston.  Who  was  its  real  author  or 
authors  does  not  matter.  In  one  sense  Jackson  was  its  sole 
author.  He  took  the  responsibility.  His  spirit  broods  over 


1  Jackson  was  born  in  what  is  now  Union  County,  North  Carolina,  but 
he  always  said  that  he  was  a  South  Carolinian.  For  proof  of  his  North 
Carolina  origin,  see  Parton's  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  i.  p.  52  et  seq. 

16 


242          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  whole  production,  and  no  doubt  the  story  is  true  that 
some  of  its  most  notable  phrases  were  invented  by  him  in 
the  rough  draft  submitted  to  his  secretary.1  But  the  major 
part  of  the  reasoning  was  Livingston's.  The  style  was 
largely  his.  The  principles  were  those  of  the  leading  mem 
bers  of  the  administration. 

The  excitement  increased.  Bitter  assaults  on  the  Presi 
dent  appeared  in  the  nullification  press,  and  he  was  defied 
in  South  Carolina  by  the  majority.2  But  the  Union  party 
was  not  overawed  or  inactive.  In  a  meeting  held  at  Green 
ville  they  threatened  "  drawn  swords  and  fixed  bayonets."  3 
At  the  elections  by  the  Legislature  of  Governor  and  United 
States  Senator  their  members  cast  blank  ballots.  To  these 
positions  the  foremost  men  of  the  State — Hayne  and  Cal- 
houn — were  chosen.  The  new  Governor  took  the  oath  of 
office  in  compliance  with  the  Ordinance.  The  retiring  Gov 
ernor  issued  a  farewell  address,  in  which  he  employed  the 
following  language  :  "A  large  majority  of  the  people  would 
rather  have  every  house  on  the  fair  surface  of  our  territory 
razed  to  the  ground  and  every  blade  of  grass  burnt  than 
surrender  to  the  despotism  and  injustice  of  that  system  of 
government  against  which  we  have  unalterably  taken  our 
stand."  The  address  of  Governor  Hayne  was  in  a  more 
conciliatory  vein,  especially  towards  those  who  had  opposed 
the  nullification  movement.  It  was  eloquent.  There  was 
much  in  it  about  "  Carolina,"  but  it  closed  with  a  fervent 
prayer  for  "  our  whole  country." 4 

1  Niles,  December  22,  p.  266  ;  also  Parton's  "  Life,"  vol.  iii.,  chapter  on 
subject.    But  Hunt,  in  his  ''Life  of  Livingston,"  p.  371,  asserts  the  exclu 
sive  authorship  for  his  subject. 

2  The  Mercury  spoke  of  the  proclamation  as  "the  edict  of  a  dictator." 
"He  can't  intimidate  the  Whigs  of  South  Carolina,"  it  said,  reviving  a 
patriotic  name.     In  the  House  of  Representatives  Preston  enquired : 
"  Are  we  Russian  serfs  or  slaves  of  a  divan  ?"     The  House  laughed  at  the 
phrases,  "his  children,"  "like  a  father."     Jackson  was  denounced  as  a 
tyrant  by  some  of  the  speakers  in  the  Legislature. 

3  One  of  the  younger  Union  leaders  was  the  afterwards  conspicuous 
B.  F.  Perry. 

4  Niles' s  Register,  December  22,  pp.  267,  278.  Twenty-six  blanks  were  cast 
against  Hayne  in  the  election ;  one  hundred  and  twenty  in  his  favor. 
No  votes  except  blanks  were  cast  against  Calhoun. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     243 

The  Union  Convention  in  South  Carolina  met  in  ad 
journed  session  on  the  10th  of  December,  Yice-President 
Middleton  in  the  chair,  in  the  absence  of  Presi 
dent  Taylor.  The  Ordinance  of  the  State  Con-  ^^^  the 
vention  and  the  acts  of  the  Congress  complained  J!™on  Conven- 
of  were  referred  to  a  committee,  of  whom  ex- 
Governor  Manning  was  chairman,  and  Johnson,  Poinsett, 
and  Pettigru  were  members.1  Their  remonstrance  and  pro 
test  claimed  that  the  people  had  been  entrapped  in  the 
election  for  members  of  the  convention.  It  assailed  the 
nullifiers  on  other  points  with  great  energy,  not  to  say 
bitterness.2 

The  Ordinance  of  Nullification  was  sent  to  the  Legisla 
tures  of  the  Southern  States.     The  remarks  of  Governor 
Floyd,   of  Virginia,  in  communicating  the  in 
strument  to  the  House  of  Delegates,  were  favor-   beforer  mathe 


able  to  it.  In  North  Carolina  and  Virginia  it  f°^re™  Leg" 
was  referred  promptly  to  a  committee  for  con 
sideration.3  About  this  time  the  Pennsylvania  House  of 
Representatives  passed  almost  unanimously  resolutions  dis 
approving  both  nullification  and  secession  as  without  the 
warrant  of  the  Constitution.  The  same  resolutions  advo 
cated  the  continuance  of  protective  duties  in  pursuance  of 
the  Governor's  recommendations  in  his  message.4  The 
events  of  this  memorable  winter  are  so  closely  connected, 
and  so  crowd  upon  the  attention,  it  is  almost  impossible, 
and,  perhaps,  unnecessary,  to  arrange  them  in  strict  sequence. 
The  Georgia  Legislature  discountenanced  the  Georgia,s  plan 
proposition  of  the  anti-tariff  convention  in  that  of  a  southern 

7>  ,  •          ,1       i      i  T  p       CM.  Convention. 

State,  suggesting  the  holding  of  a  State  conven 
tion,  and   recommended,  with   outline  of   a   plan,  to   the 
States  of  Virginia,  North   Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Ala 
bama,  Tennessee,  and  Mississippi,  a  Southern  convention, 
nothing  to  be  done  on  the  subject  until  five  States  should 

1  Mr.  James  L.  Pettigru,  of  Huguenot  descent.     A  meeting  of  French- 
born  and  descendants  of  French-born  citizens  had  been  held  some  time 
previous,  in  opposition  to  nullification.     National  Intelligencer,  October  12. 

2  Niks,  p.  291.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  266,  275.  *  Ibid.,  p.  273. 


244          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

agree.1  Representation  in  this  convention  was  to  be  based 
on  the  number  each  State  had  of  Senators  and  Representa 
tives  in  the  Congress.  Their  recommendations  were  to  be 
submitted  to  a  State  convention  of  the  people  in  every 
State  represented,  for  final  ratification  or  rejection.  The 
vi  inia  criti-  Virginia  resolutions  criticised  both  the  action 
both  the  of  the  President  and  that  of  the  people  of 
caro-  South  Carolina.  The  South  Carolinians  were 
lina<  asked  to  suspend  the  execution  of  their  Ordi 

nance  to  the  end  of  the  first  session  of  Congress.  The  dele 
gation  in  the  Congress  was  instructed  to  vote  for  a  cur 
tailment  of  the  tariff  to  a  revenue  basis.  The  Virginia 
Legislature  also  sent  commissioners  to  South  Carolina,  and 
suggested  that  a  general  convention  should  be  called  if  the 
protective  system  was  not  abandoned  before  the  expiration 
of  the  next  session  of  Congress.2 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  llth  of  Jan 
uary,  Miller  presented  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Legis- 
1833.  in  the  lature  °f  South  Carolina.  These  resolutions 
senate  of  the  declared  that  the  power  to  issue  a  proclamation, 

United    States.  11,1         n \         ,-.     ,-  j     i  xv 

Resolutions  of  vested  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  in  the 
the  south  caro-  presi(}ent  of  the  United  States,  did  not  author- 

nna      JLegisia- 

ture.  ize  him  in  that  mode  to  interfere  whenever  he 

might  think  fit  in  the  affairs  of  the  States,  or 
use  it  to  make  exposition  of  the  Constitution,  with  the 
sanction  of  force,  superseding  action  by  the  other  departs 
ments  of  the  government.  They  denounced  as  unconstitu 
tional  the  late  attempt  of  the  President  to  order  State 
authorities  to  repeal  their  legislation,  which  was  character 
ized  as  manifesting  a  disposition  to  arrogate  and  exercise  a 
power  utterly  subversive  of  liberty.  The  opinions  of  the 
President  were  said  to  be  erroneous  and  dangerous,  leading 
not  only  to  the  establishment  of  a  consolidated  government, 
but  to  the  concentration  of  all  powers  in  the  Chief  Execu 
tive.  The  right  was  asserted  of  each  State  of  the  Union, 
whenever  it  might  deem  such  course  necessary  for  the  pres- 

1  NUe8t  p.  280.  2  Kichmond  Enquirer. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     245 

ervation  of  liberty  or  vital  interests,  to  secede  peaceably! 
from  the  Union,  and  the  constitutional  power  of  coercion' 
by  the  general  government  was  therefore  denied.  As  a 
corollary  from  these  doctrines,  the  Legislature  of  South 
Carolina  asserted  that  the  primary  and  paramount  allegiance 
of  the  native  and  adopted  citizens  of  that  State  was  due  to,/ 
the  State.  The  President's  proclamation  was  spoken  of  as 
"rather  an  appeal  to  the  loyalty  of  subjects  than  to  the 
patriotism  of  citizens,"  and  "  as  a  blending  of  official  and 
individual  character  heretofore  unknown  in  our  State  papers 
and  revolting  to  our  conceptions  of  political  propriety,  ,  . 
the  solemn  and  official  form  of  the  instrument"  alone  en 
titling  it  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature.  The  reso 
lutions  affected  to  see  in  the  proclamation  "undisguised 
personal  hostility."  The  doctrines  and  purposes  of  the  in 
strument  were  said  to  be  "  inconsistent  with  the  just  idea  oi 
a  limited  government  and  subversive  of  the  rights  of  the 
States  and  the  liberties  of  the  people."  The  conclusion  of 
this  declaration  of  defiance  was  in  these  words :  "  That 
while  this  Legislature  has  witnessed  with  sorrow  such  a  re 
laxation  of  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  that  a  President  of 
the  United  States  dares  venture  upon  this  high-handed 
measure,  it  regards  with  indignation  the  menaces  which  are 
directed  against  it  and  the  concentration  of  a  standing 
army  on  our  borders;  that  the  State  will  repel  force  by 
force,  and  relying  on  the  blessings  of  God,  will  maintain  its 
liberty  at  all  hazards."1  The  resolves  were  read,  laid  on 
the  table,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.2  On  the  . 

7  •*-  January  14. 

14th  of  January,  Calhoun  offered  a  resolution  caihoun's  reso- 
which  requested  the  President  to  lay  before  the 
Senate  a  copy  of  his  proclamation  of  the  10th  of  December, 
and  authenticated  copies  of  the  Ordinance  of  the  people  of 
South  Carolina  with  the  accompanying  documents,  and  also 
of  the  proclamation  of  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina  of 
the  20th  of  December,  which  was  transmitted  with  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  80. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  81. 


246          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

request  that  he  should  lay  them  before  Congress.1  On  the 
following  day  it  was  stated  by  Grundy  on  authority  from 
the  President  that  the  documents  would  be  ready  the  second 
day  thereafter,  or  perhaps  earlier,  and  that  the  reason  why 
they  had  not  been  sooner  communicated  was  that  an  authen 
tic  copy  of  the  act  of  the  Assembly  could  not  be  procured. 
January  16  Accordingly,  on  the  16th  of  January,  a  message 
The  President's  was  received  from  the  Executive,  transmitting 
Mr"13  cJhoon  the  documents  asked  for.  Grundy  moved  their 
defends  South  reference  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  with  an 

Carolina        by  •*      m 

attacking  the  order  to  print.  At  this  point  Calhoun  arose, 
and,  observing  that  what  he  should  say  would 
be  entirely  out  of  order  under  parliamentary  rule,  threw 
himself  upon  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate.  He  said  that 
.Ing  "  no  disposition  to  notice  many  of  the  errors  which 
Miessage  contained,"  he  yet  emphatically  denied  the  sub 
stantial  statement  that  the  movements  made  by  the  State  of 
South  Carolina  were  of  a  character  hostile  to  the  Union. 
There  was  not  a  shadow  of  foundation,  he  proceeded,  for 
such  a  statement.  The  President's  grounds  were  not  less 
extraordinary  than  the  inference  itself.  Before  South  Caro 
lina  had  taken  any  position  of  a  conflicting  character  there 
had  been  a  concentration  of  United  States  troops  on  two 
points,  obviously  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  move 
ments  of  the  State.  One  of  these  concentrations  was  at 
Augusta,  and  the  other  at  Charleston.  Previous  to  this  cir 
cumstance  South  Carolina  had  looked  to  nothing  beyond  a 
civil  process,  and  had  intended  merely  to  give  effect  to  her 
opposition  in  the  form  of  a  suit  at  law.  Calhoun  declared 
that  it  was  only  when  a  military  force  was  displayed  on  her 
border  and  in  her  limits,  and  when  the  menace  was  thrown 
out  against  the  lives  of  her  citizens  and  of  their  wives  and 
children,  that  they  found  themselves  driven  to  an  attitude  of 
resistance.2  There  was  a  great  change  in  the  opinion  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  99.     Calhoun' s  resolution  was  offered  at  the 
close  of  the  day. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  101. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     247 

Executive  within  the  last  twelve  months  on  the  subject  of  the 
Supreme  Court  being  the  arbiter  to  decide  constitutional 
points  of  difference  between  States  and  the  general  govern 
ment.  He  alluded  to  Georgia's  resistance.  In  answer  to 
another  part  of  the  message,  he  would  say  that  the  reason 
South  Carolina  had  not  asked  for  a  convention  of  the  States 
in  order  to  amend  the  Constitution,  although  she  had  wished 
over  and  over  again  to  obtain  such  a  convention,  was  that 
she  had  uniformly  found  a  fixed  majority  against  her  in 
both  Houses.  Leaving  the  message  and  entering  the  more 
congenial  field  of  fundamental  principles  and  political  his 
tory,  he  averred  that  the  principle  of  decay  was  to  be  found 
in  our  institutions.  To  him  the  only  cause  of  wonder  was 
that  our  Union  had  continued  so  long.  Its  duration  was 
mainly  attributable  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  The 
time,  he  declared,  had  come  when  we  were  called  upon  to 
decide  between  a  confederation  and  a  consolidated  govern 
ment.  He  described  briefly  the  process  of  consolidation, 
and  could  see  no  distinction  between  a  consolidated  govern 
ment  and  one  which  assumed  the  right  of  judging  of  the 
propriety  of  interposing  military  powder  to  coerce  a  State. 
He  asserted  that  we  made  no  such  government,  and  that 
South  Carolina  sanctioned  no  such  government.  She  had 
entered  the  confederacy  with  the  understanding  that  a  State 
in  the  last  resort  had  a  right  to  judge  of  the  expediency  of 
resistance  to  oppression,  or  secession  from  the  Union.1  In 
the  course  of  this  speech  Mr.  Calhoun  was,  ac- 

Calhoun     con- 

cording  to  his  own  confession,  carried  along  at  f esses  that  he 
times  by  the  warmth  of  his  feelings.2  At  least 
twice  he  ascribed  to  the  President's  action  a  character  of  de 
liberate  malice,  which  he  immediately  retracted.  The  more 
notable  instance  was  the  passage  in  which  he  asserted  that 
for  attempting  to  exercise  the  right  or  understanding  on 

1  The  chapters  of  this  work  on  the  Constitution  show  how  far  Mr.  Cal 
houn  was,  in  his  fervid  advocacy  of  nullification,  from  correctly  represent 
ing  the  governing  opinion  in  his  State  at  the  time  of  the  formation  and 
adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

2  Kegister  of  Debates,  p.  103. 


248          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

which  South  Carolina  had  entered  the  Union  the  people  of 
that  State  were,  in  his  own  words,  "threatened  to  have 
our  throats  cut  and  those  of  our  wives  and  children.  No,  I 
go  too  far.  I  did  not  intend  to  use  language  so  strong. 
The  Chief  Magistrate  has  not  yet  recommended  so  desperate 
a  remedy."  In  the  colloquy  which  followed  between  Cal- 
houn  and  Forsyth,  the  latter  disputed  the  justice  of  the 
parallel  the  former  had  sought  to  establish  between  South 
Carolina's  present  conduct  and  that  of  Georgia  in  the 
Cherokee  affair.  Forsyth  said  further  that  he  had  heard 
with  great  pleasure  from  that  high  source  the  declaration  of 
South  Carolina  and  the  gentleman's  enthusiastic  love  for  the 
Union.  It  must  be  confessed,  he  observed,  that  the  State  in 
its  course  had  placed  the  object  of  their  love  in  extreme 
danger.  Continuing,  the  Senator  from  Georgia  remarked : 
"  The  Chief  Magistrate  pledges  himself  not  to  resort  to  any 
but  defensive  force;  and  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
tells  us  that  South  Carolina  has  no  desire  to  use  force  unless 
assailed.  The  hope  might  be  indulged  that  all  these  pledges 
would  be  redeemed:  if  they  were,  force  could  not  be 
used." l 

The  President's  message,  recommending  additional  legis 
lation  providing  for  the  collection  of  duties  on  imports,  was 
referred  to  -the  Judiciary  Committee,  which  re- 

January  21.  " 

collection  or  ported  a  bill  on  Tuesday,  the  21st  of  January.2 
On  the  next  day  debate  occurred  on  the  question 
of  fixing  a  day  for  its  consideration.  The  Senators  who 
sympathized  with  the  nullifiers  opposed  "Wilkins's  proposi 
tion  to  open  the  discussion  on  the  following  Thursday.3 
The  Administration  Senators  favored  the  early  date. 
Grundy  mentioned  as  a  reason  for  early  action  the  fact  that  the 
1st  of  February  was  the  time  set  by  South  Carolina  for  her 
Ordinance  to  take  effect.  That  time  was  near  at  hand,  and 
the  other  House  was  to  act  after  action  had  been  taken  in 
the  Senate.4  Mangum,  of  North  Carolina,  a  member  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  104.  2  Ibid.,  p.  150. 

3  He  was  instructed  by  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

4  Register  of  Debates,  p.  174. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     249 

Judiciary  Committee,  remarking  that  this  was  vastly  the 
most  important  question  which  could  be  brought  forward  at 
that  session, — a  question  so  important  that,  in  his  opinion,  it 
would  "  shake  the  ancient  character  of  our  institutions  to 
their  very  foundations," — moved  its  postponement  until  the 
Monday  following  one  week.1  In  the  discussion  that  took 
place  the  whole  matter  at  issue  was  opened.  Grundy  had 
fears  as  to  the  issue  of  the  proceedings  in  South  Carolina. 
Miller  defended  her  action,  and  said  that  the  force  proposed 
was  not  against  people  acting  unlawfully,  but  a  sovereign 
State  performing  rightful  acts.2  As  to  the  oath  for  office 
holders  under  the  State,  he  denied  that  it  was  a  test  oath. 
«  The  State  simply  required  all  the  agents  in  her  pay  to  take 
an  oath  to  support  her  laws."  It  was  not  essentially  differ 
ent,  he  said,  from  the  oath  taken  by  every  Senator  and  the 
officers  of  the  government.3  Regretting  that  there  should 
have  been  an  exhibition  of  feeling  on  a  mere  proposition  to 
fix  a  day  for  the  consideration  of  a  bill,  Clay  remarked  that 
Thursday  next  was  too  short  a  time,  and  proposed  the  fol 
lowing  Monday.4  Smith  supported  him,  but  Poindexter 
preferred  Mangum's  motion,  and  Bibb  also  favored  a  more 
distant  day.  Among  Poindexter's  objections  to  the  bill 
were  some  provisions  of  the  second  section  which  he  pointed 
out  and  which  he  declared  transcended  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States  courts,  and  were  to  that  extent  a  repeal  of 
the  Constitution.5  Defending  the  Committee,  Frelinghuysen 
said  that  the  bill  only  enabled  the  Executive  to  discharge 
the  sacred  obligations  which  the  Constitution  imposed  upon 
him  when  it  ordained  that  he  should  "  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed." 6  The  bill  met  the  South  Caro 
lina  Ordinance  and  laws  with  the  counteracting  agency  of 
the  Federal  courts.  Brown  and  King  concurred  with  Clay 
as  to  the  time.  Calhoun  resented  Wilkins's  remark  that 
South  Carolina  contemplated  violent  resistance  to  the  laws 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  latter  pointed  to  the  various 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  175.          2  Ibid.,  p.  176.  8  Ibid.,  p.  177. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  178.  6  Ibid.,  p.  181.  6  Ibid.,  p.  182. 


250          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

acts  of  the  State,  and  averred  that  there  was  no  indication 
of  a  disposition  in  South  Carolina  to  retrace  her  steps.  He 
upheld  the  right  of  the  general  government  to  "  adopt  every 
measure  of  precaution  to  prevent  those  awful  consequences 
which  all  must  foresee  as  necessarily  resulting  from  the  posi 
tion  which  South  Carolina  had  thought  proper  to  assume."  l 
In  the  light  of  Clay's  attitude  towards  the  nulliliers  a  fore- 
glimpse  of  events  is  perhaps  to  be  had  in  the  subjoined  re 
mark  of  Miller  :  "  Let  Congress  modify  or  repeal  the  tariff 
by  twelve  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  March,  and  I 
will  underwrite  the  State  of  South  Carolina  that  not  an  act 
of  violence  will  take  place,  not  a  drop  of  blood  will  be  shed."  2 

Clay's  motion  was  viewed  by  two  opposing  interests  as 
conciliatory.  The  friends  of  nullification  and  their  apolo- 
ciay's  motion  gists  were  pleased  at  delay.  Perhaps  they  had 
an  inkling  of  something  favorable  to  come.  The 
party  and  protectionist  enemies  of  Jackson  were  willing  to 
rebuke  him  if  it  could  be  done  without  committing  them 
selves  to  the  doctrine  of  nullification.  Hence,  after  the  re 
jection  of  the  longest  proposed  day,  Mangum's  motion, 
Clay's  proposition  was  agreed  to,  that  of  Wilkins  having 
been  withdrawn.3 

Ever  ready  to  resort  to  first  principles,  Calhoun,  on  the 
22d  of  January,  offered  three  resolutions  touching  the  origin 
January  22  an(^  cnaracter  of  the  government  and  the  limita- 
cainoun's  three  tions  upon  its  powers.  He  said  that  he  had 

resolutions    on  * 

the  character  drawn  them  with  great  care,  with  a  scrupulous 
meriT  anTThe  regar(l  to  the  truth  of  every  assertion  they  con- 
i  imitations  tained.  He  also  declared  that  he  had  been 


equally  scrupulous  in  making  no  deductions  but 
on  the  same.  Quc^  ^  WQYQ  sustained  by  the  clearest  and  most 
demonstrative  reasoning.  He  seemed  to  be  sure  that  no  one 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  184.  2  Ibid.,  p.  185. 

3  Ibid. ,  p.  187.  The  vote  for  the  longest  day  was  nine  ayes  to  thirty- 
seven  noes.  The  ayes  were  Bibb,  of  Kentucky ;  Black,  of  Mississippi ; 
Calhoun,  of  South  Carolina ;  Manguna,  of  North  Carolina ;  Miller,  of 
South  Carolina  ;  Moore,  of  Alabama  ;  Poindexter,  of  Mississippi ;  Rives 
and  Tyler,  of  Virginia. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     251 

who  valued  his  character  for  candor  could  contradict,  or 
jury  refuse  to  return  a  verdict  in  their  favor.1     He  con 
tended  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  not  unitecT  / 
under  the  principles  of  a  social  compact  as  so  many  indi-  ' 
viduals,  as  was  stated  by  the  President.     The  great  question  ! 
at  issue  was,  Where  is  the  paramount  power  ? 
His  answer  was  given  in  the  propositions  which 


he  argued,  thaithe  people  of  the  States  as  sepa-    i*0Ple  of  the 

.  1        „  ,       n  -        •  i          States  as  sepa 

rate  communities  formed  the  Constitution  ;  the    rate 


Union  was  a  compact  between  States,  ap.d  the 
Constitution  a  bond  between  States.2  ^To  call  jj£^  Between 
the  Constitution  the  social  compact~^¥fts  the 
greatest  possible  abuse  of  language.,/  "  The  sovereignty, 
then,"  to  quote  him  literally,  "  is  in  the  people  of  the  several 
States  united  in  this  Federal  Union.  It  is  not  only  in  them, 
but  in  them  unimpaired;  not  a  particle  resides  in  the 
American  people  collectively.  I  The  bill,"  according  to  Mr. 
Calhoun,  "  sweeps  away  the  'questions  of  the  tariff  or  its 
unconstitutionality,  of  nullification  or  whether  the  Supreme 
Court  can  decide  questions  in  controversy  between  the 
States  and  the  general  government.3  The  State  as  a  com 
munity  can  break  no  law.  It  can  as  a  sovereign  body  be 
subject  to  none.  If  it  pledges  its  faith  or  delegates  its 
powers  it  may  break  the  one  and  resume  the  other,  but  the 
remedy  in  such  cases  is  not  hostile  enactments,  —  not  law  by 
which  individual  citizens  are  made  responsible,  —  but  open 
force,  war  itself,  unless  there  be  some  remedial  and  peaceful^ 
provision  in  the  compact.''  That  question  was  not  before 
the  Senate,  but  if  it  should  be  presented,  he  was  ready  to 
prove  that  this  government  had  no  right  to  resort  to  force. 
The  illustrious  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  too  wise 
and  patriotic  to  admit  of  the  introduction  of  force.4  All 
contests  for  power  between  the  Federal  Government  and  the 
States  might  be  decided  in  a  Convention  of  States,  under 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  187.  2  Ibid.,  p.  188.  3  Ibid.,  p.  189. 

*  As  has  been  shown  in  the  first  chapter  on  the  Constitution,  the  proposi 
tion  to  employ  force  against  States  came  from  the  State  rights  men  of  the 
small  States,  and  was  rejected  along  with  their  system. 


252          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  which  were  the  wise  safe 
guards    against   military  despotism.      In  extending  his  re 
marks    and   alluding   to  the  various  points  at 
issue,  he  observed  that  he  could  not  but  per- 


convention  of  ceive  in  the  bill  itself  evidence  that  there  was  on 
the  part  of  its  authors  an  internal  feeling  of  the 
force  of  these  arguments.1  They  had  not  made  it  directly 
applicable  to  the  case  of  South  Carolina,  nor  to  the  case  of 
a  State  opposing  on  her  own  sovereignty  what  she  believed 
to  be  an  unconstitutional  act  of  the  Federal  Government. 
He  asked :  "  If  there  be  guilt,  South  Carolina  alone  is  guilty : 
.  .  .  Why  make  it  the  general  and  permanent  law  of  the 
land  ?" 2 

Calhoun's   resolutions   were   substantially :    1.  That   the 
people  of  the  several  States,  united  as  parties  to  a  constitu 
tional  compact,  having  acceded  as  a  separate  sovereign  com 
munity,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own  particular  ratification, 
and  that  the  union  of  which  the  said  compact 

Delegation  and     ...  . 

reservation  of  is  the  bond  is  the  union  between  the  States  rati 
fying  the  same ;  2.  That  there  was  a  delegation 
of  certain  definite  powers  to  be  exercised  jointly,  a  residuary 
mass  of  powers  reserved  to  the  State  governments,  the 
assumption  of  which  reserved  powers  by  the  general  gov 
ernment  is  unauthorized  and  of  no  effect,  and  that  the  same 
government  is  not  made  the  final  judge  of  the  powers  dele 
gated  to  it,  but  that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among 
sovereign  parties  without  any  common  judge,  each  has  an 
equal  right  to  judge  for  itself  as  well  of  the  infraction  as  of 
the  mode  and  measure  of  redress.  The  third  resolution 
denies  the  opposite  doctrine  to  that  just  stated.3 

A  different  set  of  resolves  was  offered  on  the 

Grundy's   reso- 

lutions.   The      following  day  by  Grundy.     They  were  longer 
than  but  not  so   argumentative  as   Calhoun's. 


expressly  They  began  with    the   general  delegation  and 

granted.  J  .  6  .&     . 

reservation  of  powers  in  the  Constitution,  and 
proceeded  to  imposts,  the  power  to  lay  which  was  declared 


Register  of  Debates,  p.  190.  2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.,  p.  191. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1S33.     253 

to  be  one  of  the  powers  expressly  granted  by  the  Constitu 
tion  to  the  general  government  and  prohibited  to  the 
States.  The  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828  were  regarded  as  ex 
ercises  of  the  constitutional  power  possessed  by  the  Con 
gress,  and  attempts  to  obstruct  or  prevent  the  execution  of 
the  several  acts  of  Congress  imposing  duties  were  affirmed 
to  be  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution  and  to  be  dangerous 
to  the  political  institutions  of  the  country.  At  "Webster's 
suggestion,  the  whole  subject  was  postponed  until  Monday.1 
Like  the  closing  years  of  the  last  century,  this  was  an  era 
of  constitutional  exposition  by  resolution.  The  extreme 
and  moderate  State  rights  parties  had  spoken.  claytonpre_ 
It  was  now  time  for  the  advocates  of  another  seuts  a  third 

i        i    j  -^  mi  i  ^    j.         view  of  State 

school  to  express  its  views.  Three  days  later  and  Federal 
than  the  introduction  of  Calhoun's,  Clayton,  P°wers- 
declaring  that  Grundy's  resolutions  had  yielded  the  whole 
doctrine  of  nullification  in  the  implied  admission  that  an 
unconstitutional  law  of  the  Congress  might  be  nullified, 
offered  some  resolutions  of  his  own.2  They  declared  in 
effect  that  the  power  to  annul  the  revenue  acts  of  Congress 
imposing  duties  on  imports,  or  any  other  law,  when  assumed 
by  a  single  State,  was  incompatible  with  the  existence  of  the 
Union,  contradicted  expressly  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  unauthorized  by  its  spirit ;  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  were  for  the  purposes  enumerated  in  the  Con 
stitution  one  people  and  a  single  nation ;  that  the  Constitu 
tion  did  not  secure  all  the  rights  of  independent  sovereignty 
to  any  State ;  that  the  Supreme  Court  was  the  proper  tri 
bunal  in  the  last  resort  for  the  decision  of  all  cases  in  law 
and  equity  arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws ;  that 
resistance  to  the  laws  founded  on  the  inherent  and  inalien 
able  rights  of  all  men  to  resist  oppression  was  in  its  nature 
revolutionary  and  extra-constitutional.  The  concluding 
resolution  was  a  declaration  to  support  the  President  with 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  193.     Manguin,  one  of  the  Calhoun  party,  had 
first  proposed  the  postponement  of  the  consideration  of  the  resolutions 
offered  by  his  friend,  but  had  given  way  for  Grundy  to  introduce  his. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  231. 


254          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

all  the  constitutional  power  necessary.  These  resolutions 
were  framed  with  the  greatest  ingenuity  to  express  more 
than  they  seemed  on  the  first  glance  to  contain. 

The  debate  on  the  resolutions  was  opened  by  Mr.  Mangum 
on  Monday,  the  28th  of  January.  It  was  partly  upon  the 
January  28  Force  or  Collection  bill,  and  was  participated  in 
The  debate  on  "by  Webster,  Calhoun,  Grundy,  Poindexter,  and 
and  t^e  ^orce  others.  Calhoun  desired  Grundy  to  withdraw 
bill>  his  resolutions.  Webster  called  upon  Calhoun 

to  prove  his  charge  that  the  bill  would  create  a  dictator  and 
establish  a  military  despotism.  He  also  disputed  the  asser 
tion  that  the  resolutions  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  contained  indubitable  facts,  and  said  that  he 
should  be  happy  to  meet  the  gentleman  on  that  head. 
Calhoun  replied  gravely  to  Webster's  use  of  Hudibras  on 
"  so  solemn  an  occasion."  He  denied  the  statement  of 
Webster  that  with  the  exception  of  the  first  section  (a  pru 
dent  reservation)  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  had  at 
some  time  received  the  sanction  of  South  Carolina.  When 
Calhoun  closed  with  the  remark  that  he  would  merely  add 
that  he  felt  as  deep  a  conviction  in  his  own  mind  of  the 
truth  of  the  propositions  contained  in  his  resolutions  as  of 
the  fact  that  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  was  then 
sitting  in  his  chair,  Webster  replied  promptly :  "  I  do  not 
doubt  it."  l 

The  resolutions  were  then  laid  aside,  and  the  House  pro 
ceeded  to  consider  formally  the  Force  bill.  The  first  sec- 
Provisionsof  tion  of  this  measure  provided  "  that  whenever 
by  reason  of  unlawful  obstructions,  combina 
tions  or  assemblages  of  persons,  or  unlawful  threats  or 
menaces  against  officers  of  the  United  States,  it  shall  become 
impracticable  in  the  judgment  of  the  President  to  execute 
the  revenue  laws,"  etc.,  he  might  direct  that  the  custom 
house  should  be  "  established  and  kept  in  any  secure  place 
within  some  port  or  harbor  of  such  district,  either  upon 
land  or  on  board  any  vessel."  It  was  made  unlawful  to 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  244. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1838.     255 

take  the  vessel  or  cargo  from  the  custody  of  the  proper  offi 
cer  of  the  customs  unless  by  proclamation  of  a  United 
States  court ;  and  the  President  was  authorized  in  defence 
of  such  officer  and  floating  custom  house  to  call  out  any 
part  of  the  land  or  naval  force  or  militia  as  might  be  neces 
sary  for  the  protection  of  such  officer  and  custom  house  and 
to  suppress  riots  of  persons  in  any  manner  opposing  the 
execution  of  the  revenue  laws,  or  otherwise  in  violation  or 
in  assisting  or  abetting  in  violations  of  the  same.  The 
second  section  extended  jurisdiction  of  circuit  courts  of  the 
United  States  "  to  all  cases  in  law  or  equity  arising  under 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  for  which  other  pro 
visions  are  [were]  not  already  made  by  law."  Property 
taken  or  detained  by  any  officer  under  authority  of  any  law 
of  the  United  States  was  to  be  irreprievable,  and  any  person 
dispossessing,  rescuing,  or  attempting  to  rescue  or  dispossess, 
was  to  be  deemed  guilty  of  this  misdemeanor  and  liable  to 
the  punishment  provided  in  the  act  of  April  30,  1790,  for 
obstruction  or  resistance  of  officers.1  Various  details  were 
given  in  succeeding  sections.  The  fifth  authorized  the 
issuance  of  a  proclamation  by  the  President  requiring  the 
dispersion  of  "  all  such  military  and  other  force"  as  might 
be  in  too  great  numbers  "  to  be  overcome  by  the  ordinary 
course  of  judicial  proceedings,  or  by  the  powers  vested  in 
the  marshal  by  existing  laws."  If  such  force  did  not  dis 
band,  and  the  obstruction  continued  after  the  proclamation, 
the  President  was  authorized  to  use  the  means  provided  in 
the  act  of  February  28,  1795,  entitled,  "  An  act  to  provide 
for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
Union,"  etc. ;  and  also  in  the  act  of  March  3,  1807,  en 
titled,  "  An  act  authorizing  the  employment  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces  of  the  United  States  in  cases  of  insurrection." 
Where  jails  or  other  houses  were  not  allowed  to  be  used  it 
was  made  lawful  to  use  other  convenient  places,  or  to  make 
such  other  provisions  as  the  marshal,  under  direction  of  the 


1  The  twenty-second  section.     The  punishment  there  imposed  is  a  fine 
of  three  hundred  dollars  and  imprisonment  for  twelve  months. 


256          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

United  States  judge,  might  deem  expedient  or  necessary  for 
the  purpose.  In  the  last  of  the  seven  sections  of  the  act, 
either  of  the  justices  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
or  a  judge  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  ad 
dition  to  the  authority  already  conferred  by  law,  was  em 
powered  to  grant  writs  of  habeas  corpus  in  all  cases  where 
a  prisoner  was  confined  for  an  act  or  acts  done  or  omitted 
to  be  done  in  pursuance  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  or 
of  an  order,  process,  or  decree  of  any  judge  or  court 
thereof.  Refusal  to  obey  such  an  order  was  made  a  misde 
meanor,  punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  thousand 
dollars  and  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six  months,  or 
either,  according  to  the  nature  and  aggravation  of  the 
case. 

Mangum's  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  was  lost  by  a  vote 
of  fifteen  to  thirty.1  Wilkins,  who  spoke  in  support  of  the 
measure,  was  interrupted  by  questions  proposed 
by  Poindexter,  Miller,  and  Calhoun.2  The  lat 
ter  said,  on  the  part  of  South  Carolina :  "  It  is  not  intended 
to  use  any  force  except  against  force.  "We  shall  not  stop 
the  proceedings  of  the  United  States  courts,  but  maintain 
the  authority  of  our  own  judiciary."  But  Wilkins  asked: 
"  How  can  the  Ordinance  refer  to  any  laws  of  the  United 
States  when  they  are  excluded  from  any  operation  within 
the  limits  of  the  State  ?"  He  read  a  circular  relating  to  the 
selection  of  military  routes  and  depots  of  supply  and  the 
question  of  arms  for  the  force  called  out  by  the  State  of 
South  Carolina.  No  name  was  signed  to  it,  and  it  was  to 
be  kept  out  of  the  newspapers.3  The  colloquy  between 
Wilkins  and  Miller  illustrates  the  extreme  difficulty  there 
was  of  a  settlement  on  the  terms  proposed  by  South  Caro 
lina.  The  latter,  in  one  of  his  replies  to  remarks  by  Wil- 
kins,  said :  "  If  Congress  passed  a  bill  altering  the  tariff 
acts  of  1828  and  1832,  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  such  act 
would  set  aside  the  Ordinance,  which  was  specific  in  its  ap 
plication  to  those  tariff  acts."  Wilkins  replied,  sarcasti- 

1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  248.          2  Ibid.,  p.  249.  3  Ibid.,  p.  251. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833.      257 

cally :  "  What  prospect,  then,  was  there  of  an  abandonment 
by  South  Carolina  of  her  present  position?  She  only 
offered  two  modes:  one  to  abandon  the  protecting  system, 
which  would  be  fatal  to  the  industries  of  the  Northern 
States;  the  other  to  call  a  convention  of  States."  It  was 
not  probable,  he  said,  that  two-thirds  of  Congress  or  three- 
fourths  of  the  States  would  agree  to  the  call,  and  if  they 
should  it  was  not  at  all  probable  that  they  would  alter  the 
Constitution  in  the  respects  which  would  please  South  Caro 
lina.1  Wilkins  spoke  ably  and  at  great  length,  not  con 
cluding  his  speech  until  the  next  day.  Cal-  Calhoun,g  dig. 
houn,  in  one  of  his  interruptions,  sought  to  tiuctionbe- 

,  ,  .,.  tween  military 

make  a  distinction  between  military  prepara-    preparation 
tion,  which    he  admitted  to  be   going   on   in    andarray- 
South  Carolina,  and  array,  which  he  denied.2     To  this  ob 
served  "Wilkins :   "  If  we  fold  our  arms  and  exhibit  a  per 
fect  indifference  whether  the  laws  of  the  Union  are  obeyed 
or  not,  all  will  be  quiet!"     Further :  "  The  moment  we  fail 
to  counteract  the  nullification  proceedings  of  South  Caro 
lina  the  Union  is  dissolved;  for  in  this  government  of  laws 
union  is  obedience  and  obedience  is  union.3     The  moment 

South  Carolina "    Calhoun  (interrupting) :  "  Who  relies 

upon  force  in  this  controversy  ?  I  have  insisted  upon  it 
that  South  Carolina  relied  altogether  on  civil  process,  and 
that  if  the  general  government  resorts  to  force  then  only 
will  South  Carolina  rely  upon  force.  If  force  be  intro 
duced  by  either  party,  upon  that  party  will  fall  the  responsi 
bility."  "Wilkins  (resuming)  :  "  The  general  government 
will  not  appeal  in  the  first  instance  to  force.  It  will  appeal 
to  the  patriotism  of  South  Carolina, — of  that  magnanimity 
of  which  she  boasts  so  much."  Calhoun  retorted,  amid 
cries  of  "Order!  Order!"  from  one  or  two  members:  "I 
am  sorry  that  South  Carolina  cannot  appeal  to  the  sense  of 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  252.  *  Ibid.,  p.  253. 

3  Ibid.  This  is  an  extreme  statement,  unwarranted  by  anything  in  tbe 
political  history  of  the  country,  and  refuted  by  events  already  recited  in 
the  course  of  this  history. 

17 


258  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

justice  of  the  general  government."  "Wilkins  proceeded: 
"  The  government  would  appeal  to  that  political  sense 
which  exacts  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  country  as  the 
first  duty  of  the  citizen.  It  will  appeal  to  the  moral  force 
in  the  community.  If  that  appeal  be  in  vain,  it  will  appeal 
to  the  judiciary.  If  the  mild  arm  of  the  judiciary  be  not 
sufficient  to  execute  the  laws,  it  will  call  out  the  civil  force 
to  sustain  the  laws.  If  that  be  insufficient,  God  save  and 
protect  us  from  the  last  resort."  Again :  "  If  force  be 
brought  in  to  the  aid  of  the  law,  who,  I  ask  of  gentlemen, 
is  responsible  for  it  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  ?'n 
He  admitted  the  right  of  resistance  by  force,  if  Congress 
intended  to  overrun  and  subdue  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
and  overturn  the  liberties  of  its  people. 

The  extensive  debate  which  followed  can  only  be  very 
briefly  indicated.     Grundy  spoke  on  the  30th  of  January, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Bibb,  who  did  not  con 
clude  his  remarks  until  February  I.2     Freling- 
huysen,  having   spoken   for   three   days,  was    followed  by 
Brown  on  the  4th  and  Holmes  on  the  5th  of 
February.3    Tyler  made  perhaps  the  ablest  of 
his  Congressional  arguments  on  this  occasion.4     Bibb's  con 
tention  was  that,  although  South  Carolina  had 

Bibb.  .  ill 

been  impatient  and  had  gone  to  extremes,  jus 
tice  must  be  done  to  five  other  States ;  and  that  there  was 
no  constitutional  power  to  coerce  a  State.  Abuses  or  mal 
administration  of  delegated  powers  must  be  corrected 
through  the  instrumentality  of  elections.  But  the  usurpa 
tion  of  powers  not  delegated  was  an  entirely  different  thing. 
The  federal  government  could  not  be  the  sole  judge  of  the 
limits  of  its  powers :  there  was  nothing  in  the  compact  jus 
tifying  such  a  conclusion.  From  the  nature  of  the  ques 
tions  over  which  it  had  jurisdiction,  the  Supreme  Court 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  254,  for  above  colloquy. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  263,  264-312.     , 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  312,  333,  348. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  360-377. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     259 

could  not  be  final  arbiter.  The  power  to  coerce  States  had 
been  proposed  in  the  federal  convention  and  rejected.  Four 
considerations  were  to  be  kept  constantly  in  view :  1.  The 
perpetuity  of  the  Union;  2.  The  necessity  for  a  fair  and 
energetic  administration  of  the  government  as  ordained 
and  established ;  3.  The  safety  of  a  minority  of  the  States 
against  a  combination  of  the  majority;  4.  Security  against 
usurpation  and  degeneracy  into  practical  tyranny.  Fre 
linghuysen  argued  that  the  Union  was  not  a 

/  l         l  xi      -   ^i        j    i  XT         Frelinghuysen. 

mere  federal  compact ;  that  the  delegates  to  the 
Federal  Convention  were  chosen  to  form  a  new  Constitution ; 
that  their  commission  was  not  from  sovereign  States,  but 
from  the  people ;  and  that  when  they  had  completed  their 
work  and  were  ready  to  return  to  the  people  the  very  words 
of  the  instrument  which  they  had  formed  and  which  was 
ratified  by  the  people  "were  so  selected  as  to  put  down 
forever  the  delusive  idea  of  State  interference  and  State 
sovereignty. "  He  continually  confused  the  ideas  of  sover 
eignty  by  the  people  of  the  States  and  the  alleged  sover 
eignty  of  the  State  governments.  He  professed  to  have 
understood  Calhoun  as  claiming  that  sovereignty  resided  in 
the  State  governments  as  distinguished  from  the  people  of 
the  States.  "When  the  South  Carolina  Senator  interpolated 
the  correction,  "  In  the  people  of  the  States,"  Frelinghuysen 
affected  to  construe  this  as  an  admission  that  Calhoun  had 
surrendered  his  ground  and  left  nothing  to  contend  about. 
He  further  misrepresented  the  theory  of  the  other  side  by 
the  statement  that  they  claimed  that  all  allegiance  was  due 
to  the  State.  Their  contention  was  that  allegiance  in  the 
last  resort  against  infractions  of  the  fundamental  law  was 
due  to  the  State ;  that  is,  to  the  people  of  the  several  States 
acting  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  in  conventions.  Over 
looking  the  fact  that  in  the  Olmstead  case  the  contest  was 
merely  between  the  judiciary  of  the  federal  government 
and  a  State  of  the  Union,  he  claimed  that  this  was  the  very 
issue  which  South  Carolina  sought  to  try.  This  Senator 
relied  upon  the  previous  enforcement  legislation  of  the 


260          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Congress  as  precedents.1  In  reviewing  the  Olmstead  case 
Brown,  of  North  Carolina,  showed  that,  although  Penn 
sylvania  resisted,  the  federal  government  did 
not  resort  to  coercion.  The  Congress  and  the 
President  trusted  to  the  force  of  our  institutions,  without 
other  remedy,  and  those  institutions  triumphed.  That  ex 
ample  was  commended  to  Pennsylvania.  Let  her  show  the 
same  forbearance  towards  the  people  of  South  Carolina  as 
the  Union  practised  towards  her.  Repudiating  nullification, 
he  also  repudiated  what  he  called  "the  high-toned  doc 
trine  of  the  Federal  party."  In  his  opinion,  nullifica 
tion  was  attributable  to  that  doctrine.  When  Jefferson 
saw  that  the  Union  was  in  danger  from  the  embargo 
measure,  that  act  was  repealed.  The  whole  of  the  Southern 
States,  and  not  South  Carolina  alone,  opposed  the  protective 
policy.  And  he  believed  that  a  majority  of  the  American 
people  desired  a  modification  of  the  tariff.  He  did  not 
mean  to  imply  that  the  United  States  government  should 
yield  to  every  rash  requirement  of  a  State.  But  the '  pri 
mary  interests  and  sensibilities  of  States  and  sections  should 
be  regarded.  The  tendency  of  Tyler's  argu 
ment  was  to  show  by  the  history  of  the  country 
that  the  government  from  the  beginning  was  federative  in 
its  basis  and  operation.  Many  of  the  provisions  of  the 
present  Constitution  were  taken  almost  totidem  verbis  from 
the  articles  of  confederation.  The  government  was  created 
by  the  States,  was  amended  by  the  States,  was  preserved  by 
the  States,  and  might  be  destroyed,  he  contended,  by  the 
.States ;  and  yet  we  were  told  that  it  wras  not  a  government 
of  the  States.  He  said :  "  The  great  American  idea  was 
and  is  that  sovereignty  resides  alone  with  the  people,  and 
that  public  servants  are  but  their  agents."  Protection  by 
the  United  States  government,  even  on  the  ocean,  he  held, 
was  due  to  State  agency  and  means.  The  inference  that 
Ihe  federal  government  might  punish  a  State  for  treason 


1  None  of  these  acts  had  been  directed  against  the  acts  of  the  State  con 
vention,  and  were,  therefore,  not  pertinent. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     261 

was  wholly  fallacious.  The  power  to  punish  treason  in  in 
dividuals  was  a  concession  by  the  States  necessary  for  the 
preservation  of  each,  and  produced  no  transfer  of  alle 
giance.  If  no  such  provision  had  been  put  in  the  Constitu 
tion,  there  would  have  existed  no  power  to  punish  those 
who  committed  the  offence.  Tyler  defended  the  course  of 
Virginia  in  the  matter  of  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1809 
on  the  proposition  from  Pennsylvania.  This,  he  declared, 
was  an  extraordinary  proposition,  since  it  was  confined  by 
its  terms  to  the  sole  case  of  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  State  and  federal  courts,  and  omitted  any  provision  for 
collisions  between  the  other  departments  of  the  govern 
ment.  The  residue  of  his  defence  was  feeble,  since  it  de 
pended  on  the  statement  that  because  the  resolution  was 
unanimously  adopted  it  was  adopted  hastily.  Like  all  of  the 
other  pronounced  State  rights  Senators,  he  disavowed  the 
policy  of  South  Carolina,  but  would  not  join  in  denuncia 
tion  or  deny  that  she  had  cause  of  complaint.  The  nullifi 
cation  Senators,  as  they  were  called,  generally  expressed 
confidence  in  the  President,  but  stated  their  opposition, 
some  of  them  in  strong  terms,  to  conferring  upon  him  what 
they  regarded  as  extravagant  powers.  Tyler  thought  that 
under  the  operations  of  the  Force  bill  the  Chief  Executive 
might  consider  the  members  of  the  South  Carolina  Legisla 
ture  aiders  and  abettors  in  the  resistance  to  the  federal  gov 
ernment  and  order  their  arrest. 

On  the  Vth  of  February,  Poindexter  offered  a  resolution 
requesting  the  President  to  lay  before  the  Senate  copies  of 
his  military  orders  directed  to  the  commanding 
officer  of  the  forces  in  and  near  Charleston,  par- 


'ticularly  such  orders,  if  any  had  been  given,  as    The  President's 

\  \  .  -I  •  -i  military  orders. 

referred  to  resistance  to  the  constituted  authori 
ties  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  within  the  chartered 
limits  of  that  State.1     After  a  brief  discussion,  the  resolu 
tion  was  laid  over  until  the  following  day,  on  the  motion  of 
Grundy.     A  remarkable  argument  on  the  Collection  bill 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  377. 


262          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

and  cognate  subjects  was  delivered  on  this  day  by  Clayton, 
of  Delaware.  It  was  probably  the  most  incisive  and  com 
prehensive  which  had  yet  been  contributed  to 
the  debate  on  the  side  of  federal  as  opposed  to 
State  powers  in  the  last  resort.1  Clayton  began  by  reading 
some  resolutions  of  the  Delaware  Legislature  to  which  he 
gave  his  approbation.  These  resolutions  declared  in  sub 
stance  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  compact,  but  a  form 
of  government  emanating  from  and  established  by  the  peo- 
The  Federal  P^6  °^  ^e  United  States ;  that  that  government, 
Government  though  one  of  limited  powers,  was  supreme 
suTr^mewlthin  within  its  sphere  of  action,  and  that  the  people 
its  sphere.  Qwe(i  to  •  t  anegiance  which  could  not  be  with 
drawn  by  State  nullification  or  State  secession;  that  the 
Supreme  Court  was  the  only  tribunal  for  the  settlement  in 
the  last  resort  of  controversies  arising  under  that  Constitu 
tion  and  the  laws  of  Congress ;  and  that  "  resistance  and 
revolution,"  declared  to  be  "  extra-constitutional,"  were  the 
remedy  in  "  cases  of  gross  and  intolerable  oppression."  This 
party  debate  developed  the  party  relations  of  the 

relations.  participants.  Clayton  accused  Wilkins  of  sus 
taining  the  principles  of 'the  bill  for  the  sake  of  the  man 
who  was  to  execute  its  provisions.  In  reply  to  the  strict 
constructionists,  he  said  that  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
resolutions  had  been  laid  on  the  shelf  for  thirty  years,  that 
the  latter  were  entitled  to  no  respect,  and  that  nullification 
presented  even  greater  evils  in  perspective  than  secession. 
He,  like  Frelinghuysen,  charged  unfairly  the  rigid  State 
rights  advocates  with  drawing  distinctions  between  a  State 
and  the  people  of  a  State.  But  he  obtained  some  legiti 
mate  advantage  over  his  opponents  in  discussing  the  ques 
tion  of  the  term  "  sovereignty"  as  used  in  the  circular  of 
the  Federal  Convention,  issued  September  17,  1787.  He 
said  that  the  whole  government  was  the  agent,  not  especi 
ally  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  but  of  the  people  of 
the  States.  The  South  Carolina  address  which  he  exam- 


Register  of  Debates,  pp.  378-403. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     263 

hied  was  faulty  in  phraseology  on  the  subject  of  sover 
eignty.  Clayton  contended  that  sovereignty  was  a  unit,  indi 
visible,  but  not  in  the  sense  insisted  upon  by  ^ereigvty  & 
the  South  Carolina  people.  His  unit  was  the  unit,  and  this 
people  of  the  United  States.  Our  government  ^he^Sted 
was  both  federal  and  national.  Leagues  and  con-  states- 
solidated  republics,  in  his  view,  were  intolerable  evils.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  originated  in  a  compact 
between  the  people ;  but  he  appeared  also  to  think  that  the 
State  governments  were  likewise  parties.  He  Distinction  be. 
distinguished  between  sovereign  power  and  ulti-  tween  sover- 

eign  power  and 

mate  sovereignty :  the  former  \vas  distributed  ultimate  sover- 
between  the  State  and  general  governments,  and  eignty- 
between  the  different  departments  of  these  governments; 
the  latter  rested  in  the  people  of  the  United  States.  In  a 
colloquy  with  Calhoun,  the  latter  seemed  to  make  an  irre 
sistible  point  when  he  said  that  the  Federal  Convention  had 
refused  to  give  the  National  Legislature  power  to  negative 
State  laws  interfering  with  the  harmony  of  the  Union. 
"  True,"  replied  Clayton,  "  it  was  not  adopted 

,        ,       ,  .,      J  ...  The      judicial 

clearly  because  it  was  a  new  proposition  to  check,  clay- 
confer  judicial  power  on  the  National  Legisla-  £)QI|mand  Cal" 
ture  after  the  Convention  had  resolved  to  con 
fer  all  the  power  necessary  for  checking  State  legisla 
tion  on  the  national  judiciary."  To  this  Calhoun 
responded  that  what  he  had  denied  was  that  a  propo 
sition  to  give  jurisdiction  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  all  con 
troversies  between  the  United  States  and  an  individual 
State  had  not  been  adopted  by  the  Convention.  Clayton 
retorted  that  five  days  after  the  report  was  made  an  amend 
ment  including  the  substance  in  nearly  the  same  language 
was  adopted — on  the  27th  of  August — and  that  that  amend 
ment  stood  incorporated  in  the  Constitution.  Interrupting, 
Calhoun  asked :  "  But  will  the  gentleman  contend  that  a 
State  may  be  sued  since  the  adoption  of  the  eleventh 
amendment?"  Clayton  answered :  "  The  eleventh  amend 
ment  prevented  any  suit  against  a  State  by  citizens  of 
another  State  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  State ; 


264          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

but  does  not  in  any  way  impair  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  sue  a  State.  It  was  never  designed  to  impair  that 
right."  A  colloquy  occurred  later  in  the  day  between 
Clayton  and  Tyler.  "  Can  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  still 
deny  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ?"  interrogated 
the  former.  "  I  deny,"  replied  Tyler,  "  that  I  am  a  citizen 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States."  Clayton  merely 
said  in  rejoinder  that  he  could  not  "  bandy  useless  meta 
physical  distinctions  with  any  member."  Clayton  himself 
set  up  a  fine  distinction.  He  argued  that  the  principle  of 
the  bill  was  to  operate  on  the  citizens  of  the  State,  not  on  the 
State  itself.  He  contended  that  the  Congress  had  power  to 
delegate  its  authority  on  the  President.  Throughout  his 
argument  he  was  more  subtle  than  conclusive  as  to  first 
principles ;  but  his  keen  eye  saw  the  weaknesses  of  the  op 
position  not  only,  but  also  the  defects  of  the  bill.  Quicker 
even  than  Webster,  he  detected  and  pointed  out  that  the 
second  and  third  sections  of  the  bill  contained  "  unnecessary 
and  improper  restrictions  on  the  just  powers  of  the  State 
courts,"  and  declared  that  they  would  prove  oppressive  in 
practice  on  the  suitors  in  those  courts.  Webster  injected 
the  remark :  "  None  but  officers  of  the  United  States  can 
take  advantage  of  those  sections."  But  Clayton  demon 
strated  that  the  words, "  any  officer  or  other  person,"  proved 
the  contrary,  and  he  secured  a  modification  in  accordance 
with  his  suggestion. 

The  interest  was  so  great  and  the  time  for  action  so  short 

that  the  Senate  several  times  refused  to  postpone  the  ques- 

other  tion  or  to.  adjourn  in  order  to  oblige  Senators 

arguments.     w^o  were  too  indisposed  to  proceed  with  their 

speeches.1     Opposing  the  Force  bill,  the  following  Senators 

spoke  at  a  subsequent  stage  of  the  proceedings,  some  of 

them  at  length :  Mangum,  Tyler,  Bibb,  Brown,  Calhoun, 

Miller,  the  first  and  last  of  whom  made  formal  and  elaborate 

addresses.     The    speakers  in  favor  of   the   measure  were 

Grundy,  Webster,  and   Dallas.2     A  portion   of  the  debate 

1  Kegister  of  Debates,  p.  404.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  404-159. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     265 

was  upon  Poindexter's  resolution,  mentioned  above.  Grundy 
wished  to  have  the  usual  discretion  left  in  the  President. 
Poindexter  denied  that  it  had  been  usual  to  make  exception 
in  calls  for  information  from  the  President  in  regard  to 
army  and  navy  orders.  Grundy  "  supposed"  that  one  of 
the  most  respectable  citizens  of  South  Carolina  had  given 
information  upon  which  orders  had  been  issued.  Would 
the  gentleman  have  the  name  of  this  citizen  and  all  the  cir 
cumstances  disclosed  ?  "  Yes,  the  whole  of  them,"  replied 
Poindexter.  "Would  not  such  disclosure  lead  to  the  im 
mediate  shedding  of  blood  ?"  enquired  the  Tennessee  Sena 
tor,  President  Jackson's  friend  and  the  administration 
leader  on  this  occasion.  In  an  undertone  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi  expressed  his  disregard  of  the  consequences. 
Grundy  declared  that  that  was  what  he  wished  to  avoid.1 
Poindexter  said  further  that  he  desired  to  know  if  any  offi 
cer  stationed  at  a  particular  post  had  permitted  his  feelings 
to  be  so  strongly  enlisted  as  to  interfere  with  his  duty.2 
Calhoun  remarked  that  there  was  not  one  word  in  the  reso 
lution  wrhich  ought  to  provoke  opposition.3  Webster  en 
deavored  to  affect  the  relations  between  the  secession 
Senators  and  the  administration.  "Will  you  please  to 
remember,  sir,  that  this  is  a  measure  founded  in  executive 
recommendation.  The  committee  have  not  adopted  a 
feature  that  was  not  in  the  message." 4  Tyler  and  Bibb  re 
plied,  the  former  that  he  had  not  enquired  from  what  quar 
ter  the  bill  came,  the  latter  throwing  back  the  imputation 
with  indignation  that  he  had  been  the  subservient  tool  of 
any  man,  and,  besides,  denying  that  the  bill  was  in  accord 
ance  with  the  message.5  Bibb  put  Webster  on  the  defen 
sive  by  asking  if  there  was  any  link  or  communication  be 
tween  the  bill  and  the  message  other  than  what  appeared. 
Webster  averred  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  first  and 
fifth  sections  (which  had  been  indicated  by  the  opposition 
as  new  matter)  that  the  message  did  not  recommend.  The 


Register  of  Debates,  p.  407.        *  Ibid.  8  Ibid.,  p.  408. 

Ibid.,  p.  410.  5  Ibid.,  p.  411. 


266  A    HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

President  had  had  the  "  daring  effrontery"  to  ask  for  these 

powers,  no  matter  how  high  the  offence.1     Webster  exposed 

the  division   in  the  Democratic  or  Jacksonian 

Division  in  the  . 

Democratic  party.  Dallas  said:  "  Inis  Ordinance  has  vio 
lated  almost  every  contract  or  compact  involved 
in  that  [the  Federal]  Constitution."  He  asserted  that  the 
South  Carolinians  had  "  nullified  that  important  provision 
which  secured  the  right  of  trial  by  an  impartial 
jury."  Nullifying  the  revenue  act,  South  Caro 
lina  had  also  annulled  the  judicial  act.  Not  only  so,  he 
continued,  but  the  paramount  character  of  our  national 
allegiance  was  denied  and  overthrown.2  He  argued  that 
the  naturalization  laws  showed  that  allegiance  was  due  to 
the  general  and  not  to  the  State  government.  He  charged 
despotism  against  what  he  called  the  "  combination"  of  a 
few  men  in  South  Carolina  to  control  the  affairs  of  the 
State,  and  asked  why  the  Ordinance  had  not  been  submitted 
to  the  people  for  ratification.3  He  said  that  secession  was 
manly,  unmasked,  open  and  above-board,  but  nullification 
was  secession  in  disguise,  with  a  constitutional  mask,  par 
tial  in  its  pretensions,  and  covert  in  its  operation.  Dallas 
averred  that  the  Constitution  was  its  own  best  expounder, 
but  he  found  proofs  of  the  nationality  of  our  government  in 
"four  striking  periods  of  our  annals," — the  General  Con 
gress  of  1774,  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  and  the  present  Constitution.  Of  the 
Congress  of  1774  he  declared:  "  It  was  certainly  an  assem 
bly  more  national  or  popular  in  its  apparent  origin  and 
influence  than  federative."4  He  quoted  the  remark  of 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  so  often  used  in  previous  de 
bates  :  "  The  separate  independence  and  individual  sover 
eignty  of  the  several  States  were  neyer  thought  of  by  the 
enlightened  band  of  patriots  who  framed  the  Declaration." 
He  placed  "  the  authoritative  point  of  investigation,"  how- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  413.     Bibb  had  said  that  he  could  not  imagine 
that  any  President  would  have  the  daring  effrontery  to  ask  Congress  to 
give  him  such  powers. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  418  el  seq.  8  Ibid.,  p.  421.  4  Ibid.,  p.  424. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     267, 

ever,  in  the  manner  of  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution.1) 
In  reference  to  "  critical  niceties,"  he  remarked  the  consoli-j 
dating  aspect  of  the  expression  in  the  Constitution,  "the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,"  and  insisted  that  it  would  he  in 
convenient,  incongruous,  and  preposterous  to  reserve  a  right 
to  resume  at  pleasure  what  was  agreed  to  he  surrendered 
and  had  heen  finally  surrendered.  Dallas  did  not,  as  others  | 
on  the  same  side  had  done,  contend  that  the  Supreme  Court  | 
was  a  whole  or  final  arbiter  of  constitutional  questions  ' 
which  arose  between  the  general  government  and  the  State 
governments.  "  There  is  another,"  he  said,  "  in  the  way 
of  nullification  or  secession;  and  I  answer  that  the  only 
judge  in  the  last  resort,  whether  the  Constitution  shall  be 
at  an  end  or  not,  whether  the  government  shall  be  arrested 
in  its  operations  or  not,  is  the  very  sovereignty  by  which  it 
was  created,  and  from  which  it  received  its  first  impulse; 
that  sovereignty  is  the  people  of  the  United  States."  This 
argument  was  treated  by  the  nullifying  party  and  their 
friends  with  profound  respect.2  On  the  9th  of  February, 
Grundy,  in  reply  to  Calhoun,  stated  that  there  was  nothing 
in  his  own  previous  remarks  to  support  the  inference  that 
the  President  had  responded  to  communications  from  South 
Carolina,  or  that  his  proclamation  was  known  in  that  State 
before  its  appearance.  Party  excitement  was  high  enough 
there  without  adding  fuel  to  the  flame.3  On  a  subsequent 
day  Poindexter  showed  that  at  the  period  of  the  Burr  con 
spiracy  a  similar  call  for  information,  originating  with  Ran 
dolph,  had  been  made  upon  the  President.  It  went  even 
further :  it  was  to  ask  what  had  been  done  and  what  was 
intended  to  be  done  in  relation  to  the  supposed  conspiracy.4 
Grundy  withdrew  his  proposed  amendment,  modifying  the 
call  so  as  to  ask  merely  for  copies  of  orders,  and  the  Poin 
dexter  resolution  was  then  agreed  to.5 

The  Force  bill  was  postponed  on  Saturday,  the  9th,  until 
Monday,  the  llth  of  February.6     On  the  latter  day  Clay 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  426.      J  Ibid.,  p.  430.      5  Ibid.,  p.  431. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  432.  5  Ibid.,  p.  433.      6  Ibid.,  pp.  441-443. 


268          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

gave  notice  of  his  intention  on  the  morrow  to  introduce  a 

hill  to  modify  the  various  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports. 

Miller   proved  by  quotations  that  Frelinghuy- 

February9-ll.      ^^    ^.          ^^  ^  ^egolutions  Qf   '93  &nd  '99 


were  never  used  in  a  Presidential  campaign  after  that  be 
tween  Jefferson  and  Adams,  was  groundless.  But  he  ad 
mitted  that  Virginia  slept  at  her  post  -in  1809.  In  the 

course  of  his  argument  to  sustain  nullification, 
quotes  a  Man*  Miller  was  driven  to  defend  the  conduct  of 
chusetts  prece-  Governor  Strong,  of  Massachusetts,  in  refusing 

to  obey  the  act  of  Congress  which  gave  the 
President  the  power  to  call  on  the  Governors  of  States  for 
the  militia  when  the  President  thought  that  the  contingen 
cies  had  occurred.  The  South  Carolina  Senator  said  that 
no  fault  was  to  be  found  of  Strong,  as  he  submitted  the 
matter  to  the  State  judges,  and  they  decided  that  he  had  the 
right  to  refuse  if  he  deemed  that  the  contingency  to  support 
such  a  call  had  not  happened.1  He  asserted  that  the  posi 
tion  of  South  Carolina  on  the  subject  of  secession  had  been 
misunderstood  by  some  and  misrepresented  by  others.  "  It 
is  not  true,"  he  declared,  "  that  any  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  general  government  to  enforce  the  revenue  law  is  made 
the  condition  upon  which  the  secession  shall  take  place. 
The  exception  is  a  very  broad  one,  —  any  attempt  except  by 
the  '  civil  institutions'  of  the  country."  2  Speaking  for  him 
self  only,  Miller  did  not  think  that  as  a  political  principle 
the  federal  government  could  recognize  the  right  of  seces 
sion,  simply  because  no  government,  unless  it  was  so  agreed 
upon  in  its  constitution,  could  recognize  that  which  might 
lead  to  its  own  dissolution.3  He  appeared  to  hold  that  the 
practical  assertion  of  the  right  to  secede  would  come  only 
in  the  last  resort,  when  it  would  be  immaterial  to  enquire 
whether  it  could  be  done  peaceably  or  otherwise.  He  con 
sidered  that  a  State  had  the  same  right  to  secede  that  a 
citizen  had  to  emigrate.  Every  citizen  might  emigrate,  and 
thus  destroy  the  State.  The  federal  government  in  the  ab- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  446.  2  Ibid.,  p.  449.  3  Ibid. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     269 

stract  could  not  admit  of  secession ;  nor  could  a  State  in  the 
abstract  admit  of  the  right  of  emigration,  unless  covenanted 
for^  as  in  Connecticut.  There  was  no  way  to  prevent  either 
except  by  the  exercise  of  such  arbitrary  power  as  would 
shock  the  moral  sense  of  a  people  accustomed  to  live  in  a 
free  government.  In  reply  to  Dallas,  he  contended  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  no  bearing  on  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury.1  In  all  essential  particulars  this  ex 
tended  speech  of  Mr.  Miller  was  short  of  the  requirements 
of  the  occasion.  But  there  were  some  averments  which, 
coming  from  a  Senator  representing  a  State  in  conflict  with 
the  United  States,  are  illustrative  of  her  position.  Thus,  in 
referring  to  the  canvass  for  the  State  convention,  he  ob 
served  :  "I  hazard  nothing  in  saying,  if  the  President  had 
published  his  opinion  of  the  duty  he  should  feel  under  to 
enforce  the  decrees  of  the  Supreme  Court  last  summer,  in 
stead  of  permitting  an  inference  to  be  deduced  that  he 
would  not,  no  convention  or  nullification  would  be  in  force 
in  South  Carolina  at  this  time  :  a  different  issue  would  have 
been  tendered."  He  insisted  that  the  State  had  followed 
the  theoretical  and  practical  opinion  of  the  President  up  to 
the  issuing  of  his  proclamation,  and  that  in  every  stage  of 
the  controversy  the  United  States  had  done  the  first  wrong.2 
"Wilkins's  amendments  were  adopted,  the  principal  one  of 
which  was  the  striking  out  of  the  first  section  the  words 
"  unlawful  threats  and  menaces."  A  new  sec- 

•  .  Wilkins's 

tion  was  also  added,  which  restricted  the  opera-    amendments 

tions  of  the  law  to  the  end  of  the  next  session 

of  the  Congress.     Forsyth's  motion  to  strike  out  the  third 

section  provoked  opposition  from  Webster  and  Wilkins,  the 

former  of  whom   deemed  that  to  be  the  most  important 

feature  of  the  whole  measure.     "Wilkins  also  regarded  it  as 

indispensable.3 


1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  450.     The  argument  in  brief  was  that  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  only  provided  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
right  by  existing  laws,  and  that  the  State  Constitution  could  be  altered. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  454.  3  Ibid.,  p.  461. 


270  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

In  presenting  his  Compromise  measure  Clay  made,  per 
haps,  not  the  ablest  but  certainly  one  of  the  most  effective 
ciay's  compro-  of  his  Congressional  speeches.  He  discussed 
mise  measure.  fae  whole  subject  with  great  candor.  He 
showed  that '  South  Carolina  was  wrong,  but  that  other 
States  had  also  been  wrong  on  similar  questions  of  conflict 
between  the  States  and  the  general  government,  although 
not  so  rash  and  intemperate.  The  tariff,  ho'w- 
first  object  of  ever,  was  declared  to  be  the  first  object  of  his 
his  solicitude.  golicitude>  a  jf  ft  snould  even  be  preserved  at 

this  session,"  he  said,  "  it  must  fall  at  the  next  session." 
He  would  not  pretend  to  elucidate  why  this  change  had 
been  rendered  necessary,  but  accepted  the  fact.  He  de 
clared  that  the  repeal  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  was  nothing 
in  comparison  with  the  mischief  which  would  be  produced 
by  the  overthrow  of  the  interests  protected  by  the  tariff.1 
The  evil  of  a  vacillating  policy  was  pointed  out,  and,  he 
seemed  to  think,  obviated  by  such  a  basis  as  the  one  found 
in  his  modification.  He  read  and  commented 

Explanation.  .    .  . 

seriatim  upon  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  speaking 
at  great  length  on  the  second  section,  relating  to  low-priced 
woollens.  He  explained  that  the  third  section  provided  a 
rule  by  which  the  duties  were  to  be  reduced  to  the  revenue 
standard,  Congress  being  in  the  mean  time  authorized  to 
adopt  any  other  rule  which  the  exigencies  of  the  country 
might  require.  The  same  section  also  required  that  the 
duties  should  be  paid  in  ready  money, — a  provision  that 
had  been  long  demanded  for  their  security  by  manufac 
turers.  Mr.  Clay  desired  evidently  not  to  offend  any  inter 
est  which  he  could  draw  to  the  support  of  his  measure.  He 
said  that  he  did  not  wish  the  present  bill  to  be  considered 
as  united  in  fate  with  the  measure  providing  for  the  distribu 
tion  of  public  lands  and  the  subject  of  internal  improve 
ments.  But  he  endeavored  to  show  that  if  the  latter 
passed  they  would  work  together.  It  was  not  sure  that 
there  would  be  any  surplus  under  the  operations  of  the  bill.2 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  462.  Ibid.,  p.  465. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     271 

He  attacked  the  estimates  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
as  to  future  expenditures  as  unreliable  and  calculated  art 
fully,  without  imputing  to  him  or  to  any  one  improper  mo 
tives,  to  get  rid  of  the  tariff.  Mr.  Clay  then  considered  the 
objections  which  he  thought  would  be  raised.  He  regretted 
that  the  greater  part  of  the  country  would  not  suffer  the 
principle  of  raising  revenue  from  the  protected  and  not 
from  the  unprotected  articles.  But  he  thought  that  the  time 
would  come  when  it  would  be  adopted  as  the  permanent 
policy  of  the  country.1  He  contended,  however,  that  the 
bill  would  not  interfere  with  the  power  of  pro-  The  manufac. 
tection.  The  most  that  could  be  urged  was  that  turers  would 


the  manufacturers  relinquished  some  advantage,         e     »dv»n- 


In  four  or  five  sentences  he  stated  the  situation  tase- 
as  it  appeared  to  him  :  "If  we  can  see  our  way  clearly  for 
nine  years  to  come,  we  can  safely  leave  to  posterity  to  pro 
vide  for  the  rest.  If  the  tariff  be  overthrown,  as  may  be 
its  fate  next  session,  the  country  will  be  plunged  into  ex 
treme  distress  and  agitation.  I  want  harmony.  I  wish  to 
see  the  restoration  of  those  ties  which  have  carried  us  trium 
phantly  through  two  wars.  I  delight  not  in  «Lefc  ug  have 
this  perpetual  turmoil.  Let  us  have  peace,  and  pea06-" 
become  once  more  united  as  a  band  of  brothers."  2  He  ob 
served  again  :  "  This  confederacy  is  an  excellent  contrivance, 
but  it  must  be  managed  with  delicacy  and  skill.  The  infinite 
variety  of  local  interests  and  prejudices  should  be  made  to 
yield  to  the  Union."  He  answered  all  of  the  objections  of 
the  friends  of  protection,  adroitly  considered  the  time  re 
quired,  made  the  admission  cautiously  but  with  a  certain 
purpose  that  after  eight  and  a  half  years  the  protective  prin 
ciple  would  be  in  some  measure  relinquished,  argued  subtly 
that  "what  we  lose  no  foreign  hand  gains,"  and  finally 
urged  that  "the  distribution  was  founded  on  that  great 
principle  of  compromise  and  'concession  which  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  our  institutions,  which  gave  birth  to  the  Con 
stitution  itself,  and  which  has  continued  to  regulate  us  in 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  466.  *  Ibid.,  p.  467. 


272  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

our  onward  march  and  conducted  the  nation  to  glory  and 
renown."  l 

Mr.  Clay  now  approached  the  most  delicate  part  of  his 
subject.  He  said  that  the  aspect  of  things  had  greatly 
changed  since  the  commencement  of  the  session.  When  he 
came  to  take  his  seat  he  had  supposed  that  a  member  of  the 
Union  had  assumed  an  attitude  of  defiance  and  hostility  to 
the  authority  of  the  general  government.  He  had  in  conse 
quence  felt  a  disposition  to  hurl  defiance  back  and  to  im 
press  upon  her  the  necessity  for  a  performance  of  her  duties 
as  a  member  of  the  Union.  But  since  his  arrival  in  Wash- 
south  Carolina  mgton  ^e  had  found  that  South  Carolina  did  not 
merely  making  contemplate  force.  She  disclaimed  the  allega 
tion  and  asserted  that  she  was  merely  making 
an  experiment.  By  a  course  of  State  legislation  and  by  a 
change  in  her  fundamental  laws  she  was  endeavoring  by  her 
civil  tribunals  to  prevent  the  general  government  from  car 
rying  the  laws  of  the  United  States  into  operation  within 
her  limits.  Her  appeal  was  not  to  the  sword,  but  to  the 
law.  He  ventured,  he  said,  to  predict  that  the  State  to 
which  he  had  referred  must  ultimately  fail  in  her  attempt. 
While  he  refrained  from  saying  anything  to  the  disparage 
ment  of  that  State,  he  thought  that  she  had  been  greatly 
in  error,  and  had,  to  use  the  language  of  one  of  her 
own  writers,  "  made  up  an  issue  unworthy  of  her."  He 
farther  affirmed  that  from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the 
the  other  nullification  had  been  put  down  by 

Nullification  ,         .          .     .,  ,        «  «          ,  ,. 

had  been  put   the   irresistible   force  of  public  opinion   more 
down  by  public    effectually   than   by  a  thousand   armies.       He 

opinion. 

would  express  two  opinions.  The  first  was  that 
it  was  not  possible  for  the  ingenuity  of  man  to  devise  a  sys 
tem  of  State  legislation  to  defeat  the  execution  of  the  laws 
of  the  United  States  which  could  not  be  countervailed  by 
federal  legislation.2  The  other  was,  and  here  he  appeared  to 
be  criticising  the  President,  that  it  was  not  possible  for  any 
State,  provided  the  general  government  was  administered 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  469.  J  Ibid.,  p.  470. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1838.     273 

with  prudence  and  propriety,  so  to  shape  its  laws  as  to  throw 
upon  the  general  government  the  responsibility  of  first  resort 
ing  to  the  employment  of  force.  South  Carolina  taking  this 
view  of  the  subject  was  doing  nothing  more,  except  that  she 
was  doing  it  more  rashly,  than  some  other  States  had  done ; 
and  he  cited  Ohio  in  the  bank  taxation  cases  and  Virginia  in 
the  lottery  cases,  but  he  was  not  sure  that  he  was  correct  in 
the  history  which  he  gave  of  the  latter.  South  Carolina,  he 
continued,  had  postponed  the  operation  of  her  Ordinance,  and 
would  without  doubt  again  postpone.  It  was  utterly  impos 
sible,  he  declared,  that  she  should  have  ever  desired  for  a  mo 
ment  to  become  an  independent  State.  Mr.  Clay  concluded 
his  speech  with  a  solemn  appeal  for  a  deliberate  consideration 
of  a  measure  intended  to  restore  harmony  to  the  Union.1 

Forsyth  opposed  the  granting  of  leave  to  introduce  the 
bill,  but  said  that  its  avowed  object  would  meet  with  uni 
versal  approbation.  But  in  "  the  project  now  Forsytes  oppo- 
offered  he  could  not  see  the  elements  of  success."  Sltlon> 
The  opportunity  presented  a  few  months  before  should  have 
been  seized.  Only  fourteen  days  of  the  session  remained, 
and  it  would  be  better  to  await  the  action  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  the  bill  before  that  body.  He  objected, 
too,  that  the  bill  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  because 
the  Senate  had  no  power  to  raise  revenue.  He  asserted 
that  the  tariff  was  "at  its  last  gasp,"  and  that  Debateonciay's 
its  partisans,  no  longer  able  to  sustain  a  conflict,  request, 
sought  to  make  the  best  bargain  they  could.2  Smith,  an 
other  Senator  of  the  administration  party,  complained  that 
the  bill  contained  nothing  but  protection  from  beginning  to 
end.  Nevertheless,  he  thought  that  the  reduction  on  some 
articles  was  too  great.3  Poindexter  returned  his  hearty 
thanks  to  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  for  the  bill,  and  hoped 
that  leave  would  be  granted  to  introduce  it.  He  protested 
against  what  he  called  the  inconsistency,  which  would  bring 
out  the  whole  of  the  country  to  carry  the  tariff  laws  into 
effect  and  then  refuse  to  receive  any  proposition  to  modify 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  472.  2  Ibid.,  p.  473.  s  Ibid.,  p.  474. 

18 


274          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  tariff.  Although  he  had  not  examined  the  bill,  Sprague, 
of  Maine,  expressed  the  hope  that  leave  would  be  granted. 
He  sharply  arraigned  Forsyth  for  his  sarcasm  at  the  mover 
of  a  tranquillizing  measure.  He  also  observed  that  the  gen 
tleman  would  find  that  the  victory  over  protection  was  not 
yet  won.1  Seeing  that  he  had  made  a  mistake,  the  Senator 
from  Georgia  disclaimed  having  been  sarcastic ;  he  declared, 
on  the  contrary,  that  he  had  praised  the  Senator  from  Ken 
tucky.  After  further  remarks  by  Clay,  Calhoun  approved 
the  objects  for  which  the  bill  was  introduced.  He  who  loved 
the  Union  must  desire  to  see  that  agitating  question  brought 
to  a  termination.  He  said  he  believed  that  to  the  unhappy 
divisions  which  had  kept  the  Northern  and  Southern  States 
apart  "  the  present  entirely  degraded  condition  of  the  coun 
try  was  solely  attributable." 2  He  favored  the  general  princi 
ples  of  the  bill,  especially  that  of  fixing  ad  valorem  duties, 
except  in  a  few  instances,  but  there  were  some  objections  to 
the  measure.  He  seemed  to  regard  these  as  minor  points  in 
the  settlement  which  would  present  no  difficulty  when  gen 
tlemen  met  "  in  that  spirit  of  mutual  compromise  which  he 
doubted  not  would  be  brought  into  their  deliberations  with 
out  at  all  yielding  the  constitutional  question  as  to  the  right 
of  protection."  This  remark  was  greeted  with  tumultuous 
applause  in  the  galleries.3  Dickerson  would  vote  against 
leave  on  the  ground  that  the  bill  could  not  originate  in  the 
Senate.  While  Webster  could  not  concur  in  some  of  the 
provisions,  he  would  vote  for  leave.  It  could  hardly  be  re 
jected  on  the  ground  taken  by  the  Senator  from  New  Jersey. 
If  he  understood  the  plan,  it  was  to  surrender  the  power  of 
discrimination  or  a  stipulation  not  to  use  that  power  in  the 
laying  of  duties  on  imports  after  the  eight  or  nine  years  had 
expired.  For  one  he  was  not  ready  to  enter  into  the  treaty, 
and  he  did  not  take  the  despairing  view  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kentucky  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff.4  Clay  refused 
to  adopt  Forsyth's  suggestion  to  strike  out  the  clause  that 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  475.  2  Ibid.,  p.  477. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  478.  *  Ibid.,  p.  479. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     275 

raised  the  duty.  The  debate  proceeded  between  Buckiier, 
Kane,  Holmes,  Chalmers,  Foot,  King,  Forsyth,  and  Clay,  who 
concluded  the  day's  discussion.1  Dickerson  having  objected 
to  Forsyth's  motion  to  read  Clay's  bill  a  second  time  with  a 
view  to  commitment,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  printed.2 

The  consideration  of  the  Force  or  Revenue  Collection 
bill  was  resumed.  Some  of  the  extreme  State  The  Force  bm 
rights  party  refused  to  vote  on  Forsyth's  motion  aeain- 
to  strike  out  the  objectionable  third  section.  Calhoun  was 
one  of  four  of  them,  however,  who  supported  it.  It  received 
no  other  vote  except  Moore's.  Calhoun  himself  moved 
that  the  bill  as  amended  should  be  printed,  which  was 
ordered.  Pending  the  first  of  these  motions,  the  nullifying 
party  moved  twice  to  adjourn. 

On  the  13th  of  February,  "Webster  introduced  five  reso 
lutions  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff.     They  de- 

J  February  13. 

clared  (1)  that  as  soon  as  it  could  be  ascertained  Webster's  tariff 
that  the  act  of  1832  produced  a  surplus,  pro 
vision  ought  to  be  made  for  the  reduction  of  duties,  having 
just  regard  to  the  various  interests  and  opinions  of  different 
parts  of  the  country,  but  having  regard  for  (2)  an  increase 
in  the  amount  of  duty  on  some  articles.  The  second  reso 
lution  provided  for  the  reduction  to  be  on  a  specific  basis 
with  respect  to  revenue  and  protected  articles  both,  and  the 
rate  of  wages.  The  third  resolution  further  enforced  the 
principle  of  discrimination  by  a  declaration  that  the  opposite 
plan  was  "  unwise  and  injudicious"  and  "  hitherto  equally 
unknown  in  the  history  of  this  government  and  in  the  prac 
tice  of  all  enlightened  nations."  His  fourth  resolution 
asserted  that  the  power  of  commercial  regulation  or  of 
laying  duties  on  imports  having  been  taken  from  the  State 
governments  and  vested  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
Congress  could  not  surrender  or  abandon  such  power  com- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  479-481. 

J  This  bill  contained  six  sections.      Register  of  Debates,  vol.  ix.  part  1, 
p.  481. 


276          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

patibly  with  its  constitutional  duty.  The  last  resolve  was 
aimed  directly  at  Clay's  movement.  It  proclaimed  "  that  no 
law  ought  to  be  passed  on  the  subject  of  imports  containing 
any  stipulation,  express  or  implied,  or  giving  any  pledge  or 
assurance,  direct  or  indirect,  which  shall  [should]  tend  to 
restrain  Congress  from  the  full  exercise,  at  all  times  here 
after,  of  all  its  constitutional  powers,  in  giving  reasonable 
protection  to  American  industry,  countervailing  the  policy 
of  foreign  nations  and  maintaining  the  substantial  indepen 
dence  of  the  United  States."  l 

The  debate  on  Clay's  bill  having  been  resumed,  Dickerson 
moved  that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manu 
factures,  and   Grundy  that  it  be  referred  to  a 

Debate   on  ... 

clay's  bill  re-  select  committee  chosen  from  different  sections 
of  the  Union.2  The  latter  expressed  the  hope 
that  Mr.  Clay  would  be  put  at  the  head  of  the  committee. 
Clay  and  Calhoun  also  expressed  a  preference  for  a  select 
committee,  and  the  proposition  was  further  endorsed  by 
Bell,  King,  Moore,  and  Holmes,  Senators  holding  variant 
opinions  on  the  tariff  question.  Buckner  favored  Dicker- 
son's  motion,  and  Benton,  stating  his  objections  to  the  bill, 
said  he  would  not  send  it  to  any  committee.  On  the  motion 
of  Dallas  to  lay  the  bill  upon  the  table  the  yeas  were  thirteen 
and  the  nays  twenty-six.  The  affirmative  vote  was  largely 
Northern  Democratic,  the  negative  majority  having  been 
made  up  of  the  friends  of  South  Carolina  and  the  National 
Eepublicans.  This  was  the  first  step  in  an  alliance  which 
was  to  last  during  the  remainder  of  General  Jackson's  ad 
ministration.  By  twelve  to  twenty-six  the  proposition  to 
refer  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  was  then 
defeated.  It  was  referred  to  the  select  committee.3 

During  an  ensuing  debate  on  the  Force  bill,  Moore,  of 
Alabama,  said  that  neither  the  God  of  nature  nor  the  Con 
stitution  had  made  a  distinction  between  the  labor  of  the 
slave  and  the  labor  of  the  free,  between  the  bondsman  and  his 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  484. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  486.    Journal,  p.  175. 


8  Ibid. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     277 

master,  and  the  South  would  not  permit  the  government  to 
do  it  by  protecting  the  free  labor  of  the  North  at  the  expense 
of  the  slave  labor  of  the  South.1  Motions  to  postpone  the 
question  were  made  at  different  times  by  the  enemies  of  the 
measure.  Webster's  resolutions,  on  motion  of  Chambers, 
were  tabled  on  the  14th  of  February.2  ^ 

The  argument  of  Eives  on  the  Force  bill  was  one  of  the 
most  able  and  moderate  of  the  series.3  It  was  based  chiefly 
on  Mr.  Madison's  views,  or  rather  on  the  later  Riveg  on  the 
presentation  of  them,  on  the  subject  of  State  Force  bin. 
sovereignty.  The  consequence  of  nullification  in  South 
Carolina  would  be  to  abolish  the  uniformity  of  imposts  and 
the  equality  of  fiscal  and  commercial  regulations.  Other 
wise,  he  contended,  the  whole  commerce  of  the  country 
would  be  drawn  to  the  free  ports  of  South  Carolina.  But  a 
view  of  higher  importance  was  that  the  example  would 
inflict  a  mortal  wound  on  the  Constitution.  The  govern 
ment  would  be  thenceforward  virtually  dissolved.  Agreeing 
with  Calhoun's  first  position  that  the  Constitution  was  a 
compact  between  the  States  as  independent  and  The  Constitu. 
separate  communities,  he  differed  from  the  great  tion  a  compact, 

^       ,,      ~        ,.    .          .  .but  State  BOV- 

South  Carolinian  in  respect  to  other  proposi-  ereigntynotab- 
tions.  State  sovereignty  was  not  absolute.  As  solute- 
to  defined  objects  there  was  a  sovereignty  in  three-fourths 
of  the  States  which  were  necessary  to  change  the  Constitu 
tion.  Mr.  Rives  said :  "  In  the  body  of  the  community  the 
sovereignty  of  each  system  resides ;  that  of  the  federal  sys 
tem,  in  the  community  called  the  United  States,  that  of  the 
State  systems,  in  the  communities  called  the  States."  Jeffer 
son  admitted  nationality  in  the  general  government  for  cer 
tain  purposes;  also  Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address, 
and  Madison  in  his  letter  to  the  North  American  Review. 
The  honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina  himself,  in 
his  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton,  published  last  summer,, 
says:  "The  general  government  is  the  joint  organ  of  all 
the  States  confederated  into  one  general  community."  He 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  491.      2  Ibid.,  p.  492.      8  Ibid.,  pp.  492-517. 


278  A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

quoted  also  the  report  and  exposition  adopted  by  the  South 
Carolina  Legislature  in  1828,  as  follows:  "  Our  system 
itself  consists  of  two  distinct  and  independent  sovereign 
ties."  In  the  second  sentence  as  quoted  there  was  no  incon 
sistency  with  the  attitude  of  South  Carolina  in  1833.  It 
was  declared  that  the  general  powers  conferred  on  the 
general  government  were  subject  to  its  sole  and  exclusive 
control,  and  the  States  could  not,  without  violating  the  Con 
stitution,  interpose  their  authority  to  check  or  in  any  man 
ner  counteract  its  movements  so  long  as  they  were  confined 
to  its  proper  sphere  ;  so  also,  it  was  further  declared,  the 
peculiar  and  local  powers  reserved  to  the  States  were  sub 
ject  to  their  exclusive  control,  nor  could  the  general  govern 
ment  interfere  with  them  without  on  its  part  also  violating 
Constitution.  But  in  a  colloquy  between 


coiio  u     be 

tween  caihoun    Calhoun  and  Rives  the  former  declared  that 

various  Senators  had  misapprehended  his  views. 
He  had  contended  that  if  a  State  should  resume  the  powers 
granted  to  the  general  government  such  resumption  would 
be  only  a  breach  of  contract  for  which  the  State  as  a  com 
munity,  and  not  its  citizens  individually,  would  be  respon 
sible.  To  this  Rives  replied  immediately  that  if  it  be  ad 
mitted  that  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  a  State  to  resume  the 
powers  granted  by  it  and  the  other  States  to  the  general 
government  would  be  a  breach  of  compact,  then  it  neces 
sarily  followed  that  no  State  had  a  right  under  the  Consti 
tution  to  make  such  resumption.  In  respect  to  an  unconsti 
tutional  act  of  a  State,  he  asserted  that  it  could  not  in  any 
manner  disturb  the  regular  action  of  the  government.  The 
Constitution  was  not  a  mere  league  or  treaty  of  alliance  or 
confederation,  but  a  government  to  the  extent  of  its  granted 
powers.  The  interposition  of  a  State  convention  was  of  no 
more  avail  to  arrest  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  than  that  of  a  State  in  her  ordinary  political  capacity  ; 
which  was  apparent  from  the  clause  in  the  Constitution 
asserting  the  .supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  made 
in  pursuance  -thereof.  He  brushed  away  as  he  would  have 
brushed  a  cobweb  Tyler's  distinction  between  a  citizen  of 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     279 

the  government  of  the  United  States  and  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States :  "  Who,  sir,  has  ever  seen  a  citizen  of  the 
government  of  Virginia  ?"  He  insisted  that  the  relation  of 
allegiance  was  not  between  citizen  and  government,  but 
was  between  citizen  and  sovereign.  The  allegiance  in  this 
country  was  therefore  due  to  the  whole  body  Riveg  gayg  tha| 
of  the  community.  Strong  as  he  was  in  all  this  allegiance  is  du4 
part  of  his  contention,  the  real  weakness  of  his  body  of  the  com-, 
position  became  apparent  when  he  considered  mumty- 
the  security  for  State  rights.  He  relied  in  the  last  resort  on 
"  the  moral  interposition  of  the  States"  and  the  admittedly 
extra-constitutional  remedy — which  he  declared,  however,  to 
be  "peaceful  and  complete" — of  one-half  of  the  States  re 
fusing  to  elect  Senators.1  He  saw  nothing  in  common 
between  the  Ohio  and  Virginia  cases,  but  he  was  not  dis 
posed  to  moot  those  questions  with  the  Senator  from  Ken 
tucky,  with  whom  he  was  disposed  to  co-operate  in  his 
effort  to  adjust  a  most  distracting  question.  Bives  did  not 
concur  in  favoring  the  provisions  of  the  bill  for  a  military 
force  "  at  the  present  moment."  He  agreed  with  a  majority 
of  those  who  had  spoken  that  a  new  adjustment  of  the 
tariff  was  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  necessary. 

Evening  sessions  were  held  at  which  the  Force  measure 
was  considered.  The  provision  for  a  floating  custom-house, 
which  Clay  had  characterized  as  ludicrous,  was  retained. 
Several  amendments,  offered  by  the  friends  of  South  Caro 
lina,  were  rejected.2 

On  the  15th  and  16th  of  February  Calhoun  spoke,  using 
the  whole  of  the  former  and  a  portion  of  the  latter  day.3    It 
was  the  speech  of  a  great  man,  but  not  the 
great  speech  of  a  great  man.     Indeed,  it  must 
be  said  that  it  was  a  comparative  failure,  in  form  and  sub 
stance,  as  a  constitutional  argument.     The  first  part  was  a 
defence  of  South    Carolina   and  of  himself.      It  was   too 


1  His   single    authority  is,   apparently,    C.   J.    Marshall,  in  Cohen  v, 
Virginia. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  p.  519.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  519-553. 


280  A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

apologetic.  So  far  as  "be  answered  arguments  he  directed 
his  efforts  towards  a  reply  to  the  speeches  of  Clayton  and 
Rives.  He  made  a  nearly  satisfactory  vindication 
caihoun's  of  himself  and  his  State  from  the  charge  of  being 
parative  fail-  responsible  for  the  protective  system.  He  ex 
amined  the  act  of  1816  and  declared  that  it  was 
a  tariff  for  revenue,  but  admitted  that  so  far  as  "  it  intro 
duced  the  obnoxious  minimum  principle"  it  was  protective. 
But  his  account  of  its  introduction  was  the  weakest  possible 
defence  of  his  friends  and  of  himself.  How  it  was  over 
looked  at  the  time,  he  averred,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to 
say;  and  the  only  explanation  he  offered  was  that  it  was 
new,  and  he  was  then  engaged  in  considering  the  currency 
question.  His  speech  on  that  occasion,  which  he  now  de 
fended,  barring  "  some  hasty  and  unguarded  expressions," 
was  termed  "  an  impromptu."  He  assigned  the  same  rea 
sons  for  the  tariff  of  1816  that  had  been  given  previously 
in  the  other  house  by  McDuffie  and  others  and  in  the 
Senate  by  Hayne.  He  might  well  have  been  believed  when 
he  declared  that "  whatever  support  the  State  had  given  the 
bill  had  originated  in  the  most  disinterested  motives."  He 
also  stated  that  he  had  opposed  the  restrictive  measures  of 
Mr.  Madison,  and  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  a  bill  to  repeal  the  whole  system.  South  Carolina 
had  steadily  protested  from  1818  to  1828  through  the  Legis 
lature  against "  further  encroachments."  On  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1828  she  had  fallen  back  on  her  reserved  powers. 
She  had  been  thoroughly  instructed  by  men  of  the  most  com 
manding  talents  and  acquirements.  Throughout  the  discus 
sion  no  address  was  made  to  the  low  and  vulgar  passions. 
He  asserted  that  General  Jackson  had  proved  utterly  false 
to  their  hopes.  He  attributed  the  policy  pursued  by  the 
President  to  "  the  mischievous  influence  of  a  single  indi 
vidual"  admitted  to  the  cabinet.  He  repelled  the  charge  in 
the  President's  proclamation,  a  charge  which  had  been  often 
made,  that  he  (Calhoun)  had  been  actuated  in  the  part  he 
had  taken  by  disappointed  ambition.  He  adduced  his  own 
conduct  as  Vice-President  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1838.     281 

bill  of  1828  as  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  charge  of  self- 
seeking.  As  to  sovereignty  and  the  nature  of  our  govern 
ment,  he  argued  that  the  terms  Union,  federal,  united,  all 
imply  a  combination  of  sovereignties — a  confederation  of 
States.  But  his  language  here  is  not  as  clear  as  usual, 
for  having  spoken  of  a  combination  of  sovereignties,  he 
says  that  these  terms  were  never  applied  to  an  association 
of  individuals.  Of  course  he  does  not  refer  to  the  smaller 
association  which  makes  the  State,  but  to  the  greater  which 
makes  the  Union  of  States.  He  asks :  "  Who  ever  heard 
of  the  United  States  of  New  York,  of  Massachusetts,  or  of \ 
Virginia  ?"  What  he  means  by  a  combination  of  sovereign 
ties  is  not  such  a  combination  as  would  make  a  unit,  like 
Clayton's  people  of  the  United  States,  for  he  presently  ex 
plains  that  sovereignty  and  power  are  different  expressions 
and  that  the  former  resides  alone  in  the  individual  States. 
He  declares  expressly  that  there  is  no  divided  sovereignty 
between  the  States  severally  and  the  United  States.  But  a 
sovereign  may  delegate  his  powers.  To  surrender  any  por 
tion  of  sovereignty  is  to  annihilate  the  whole.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  affirmed  that  the  whole  sovereignty  was  in  the  several 
States  of  the  Union,  and  that  the  controversy  was  one  be 
tween  power  and  liberty.  He  thought  that  Rives  and  others 
who  had  professed  the  principles  of  '98  "  had  degraded  them 
by  explaining  away  their  meaning  and  efficacy."  The  speech 
abounded  in  historical  parallels.  It  was  more  a  study  of 
ideas  of  government  than  of  government  in  the  concrete. 
His  whole  theory  of  absolute  and  concurring  majorities  was 
built  in  the  air.  But  his  great  earnestness,  his  broad  notion 
of  justice,  his  occasional  flashes  of  an  austere  and  charac 
teristic  eloquence,  compel  our  admiration.1 

1  Calhoun's  eloquence  was  of  the  rock-ribbed  kind.  The  following  are 
specimens  from  this  speech,  which  I  regard  as  one  of  his  weakest :  He 
presents  "the  impious  spectacle  of  this  government,  the  creature  of  the 
States,  making  war  against  the  power  to  which  it  owes  its  existence." 
Or,  better:  "It  was  said  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Grundy] 
to  be  a  measure  of  peace.  Yes,  such  peace  as  the  wolf  gives  to  the  lamb  ; 
the  kite  to  the  dove  :  such  peace  as  Russia  gives  to  Poland,  or  death  to 
its  victim."  Register  of  Debates,  p.  536. 


282          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

"Webster's  speech  on  the  16th  of  February  was  much 
stronger  as  an  argument  for  the  supremacy  of  the  Union 
than  his  speeches  in  reply  to  Hayne,  but  was 
speech  of  Feb-  not  so  declamatory.1  Rhetoric  was  subordinated 
to  reasoning,  but  both  were  of  the  highest  order. 
Although  he  took  the  floor  immediately  upon  the  conclusion 
of  Calhoun's  argument,  he  did  not  reply  technically,  but 
nevertheless  met  the  leading  points  of  that  speech  and 
sought  in  an  independent  way  to  establish  his  own  proposi 
tions.  He  accepted  Calhoun's  resolutions  and  his  speech  on 
the  same  and  the  one  just  made  by  the  South  Carolina 
Senator  "as  comprising  the  whole  South  Carolina  doctrine." 
The  word -con-  Examining  the  first  two  of  Calhoun's  resolu- 
stitution."  tions,  he  claimed  that  the  word  "  Constitution" 
threatened  his  whole  doctrine  of  compact.  lie  said  that 
Calhoun  introduced  a  new  word,  and  "  degraded  the  Consti 
tution  into  an  insignificant,  idle  epithet,  attached  to  com 
pact."  In  his  proudest  manner  he  averred :  "  Sir,  I  must 
say  to  the  honorable  gentleman  that  in  our  American  polit 
ical  grammar,  *  Constitution'  is  a  noun  substantive;  it  im 
ports  a  distinct  and  clear  idea  of  itself;  and  it  is  not  to  lose 
its  importance  and  dignity,  it  is  not  to  be  turned  into  a  poor, 
ambiguous,  senseless,  unmeaning  adjective  for  the  purpose 
of  accommodating  any  new  set  of  political  notions."  He 
Accession— se-  claimed  that  Calhoun  had  used  the  word  "  ac 
cession,  ceded"  as  applied  to  the  action  of  the  States  in 
ratifying  the  Constitution,  because  accession  was  the  natural 
converse  of  secession,  and  it  was  desired  to  establish  that 
doctrine.  He  objected  to  the  use  of  unconstitutional  lan 
guage  in  explaining  or  declaring  the  import  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  But  Webster  proceeded  to  something  better  than  verbal 
criticism.  The  people  had  ordained  a  constitution ;  could 
they  reject  it  without  revolution?  The  people  had  estab 
lished  a  form  of  government;  could  they  overthrow  it  without 
revolution  ?  These,  he  declared,  were  the  true  questions.  If 
one  State  might  secede  because  an  impost  was  laid,  another 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  553-587. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     283 

might  because  it  was  not  laid.  Secessions  might  thus  go  on 
interminably.  But  these  questions  presupposed  the  breaking 
up  of  the  government.  Whilst  the  Constitution  lasted  they 
were  repressed.  "  The  Constitution,"  he  said, "  does  not  pro 
vide  for  events  which  must  be  preceded  by  its  secession  revo- 
own  destruction.  Secession,  therefore,  since  it  lutionary. 
must  bring  these  consequences  with  it,  is  revolutionary. 
And  nullification  is  equally  revolutionary.  It  strikes  a 
deadly  blow  at  the  vital  principle  of  the  whole  Union.  Is 
it  not  anarchy  as  well  as  revolution  ?  The  alleged  right  of 
self-decision  in  a  State  leads  necessarily  to  force,  because  dif 
ferent  States  will  decide  differently,  and  if  there  be  no 
superior  power  the  question  at  issue  can  be  decided  only  by 
force."  He  summed  the  steps  and  consequences  of  nullifi 
cation.  "  And  now,  sir,"  he  proceeded  to  say,  "  against  all 
these  theories  and  opinions  I  maintain  :  1.  That  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  league,  con-  His  four  propo_ 
federation,  or  compact  between  the  people  of  8itions- 
the  several  States  in  their  sovereign  capacities,  but  a  govern 
ment  proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people  and 
creating  direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals.  2. 
That  no  State  authority  has  power  to  dissolve  these  rela 
tions;  that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution ;  and 
that,  consequently,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession 
without  revolution.  3.  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  con 
sisting  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  acts  of 
Congress  passed  in  furtherance  of  it,  and  treaties,  and  that 
in  cases  not  capable  of  assuming  the  character  of  a  suit  in 
law  or  equity,  Congress  must  judge  of  and  finally  interpret 
this  supreme  law  so  often  as  it  has  occasion  to  pass  acts  of 
legislation ;  and  in  cases  capable  of  assuming,  and  actually 
assuming,  the  character  of  a  suit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  is  the  final  interpreter.  4.  That  an  attempt 
by  a  State  to  abrogate,  annul,  or  nullify  an  act  of  Congress, 
or  to  arrest  its  operation  within  her  limits,  on  the  ground 
that,  in  her  opinion  such  law  is  unconstitutional,  is  a  direct 
usurpation  on  the  just  powers  of  the  general  government 
and  on  the  equal  rights  of  other  States ;  a  plain  violation  of 


284          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding  essentially  revolutionary 
in  its  character  and  tendency."  The  first  pair  of  these  re 
solves  were  negative,  the  second  affirmative ;  and  in  stich 
order  was  his  argument  throughout.  Webster's  tendency 
to  verbal  criticism,  and  consequently  to  narrow  views,  was 
as  perceptible  as  Calhoun's  to  vague  generalization  in  this 
discussion.  "Webster  said  that  he  differed  not  without  diffi 
dence  and  regret  with  Rives,  and  declared  his  respect  for 
the  school  to  which  that  gentleman  belonged,  concurred  in 
its  results,  but  must  be  permitted  to  hesitate  about  some 
of  the  premises  of  the  doctrines.  While  he  did  not  agree 
The  constitu-  ^na^  ^n  strictness  of  language  the  Constitution 
tion  not  a  was  a  compact  at  all,  he  did  agree  that  it 

compact,      but  „          ,    ^ 

founded  on  was  founded  on  consent  or  agreement  or  on 
compact.  compact,  if  the  gentleman  preferred  that  word, 

and  meant  no  more  by  it  than  voluntary  consent  or  agree 
ment.  When  a  people  agreed  to  erect  a  government  and 
actually  erected  it  the  thing  was  done,  and  the  agreement 
was  at  an  end.  In  the  account  which  he  gave  of  the  forma 
tion  of  the  government  he  said  that  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  sovereignty  of  government  known  to  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  in  which  opinion  he  appeared  to  concur  with  the 
views  of  John  Taylor,  of  Caroline,  in  his  work,  "  Construc 
tion  Construed,"  rather  than  with  the  speakers  on  his  own 
side  of  the  debate  upon  the  question  under  consideration. 
He  contended  that  there  was  no  language  in  the  Constitu 
tion  applicable  to  a  confederation  of  States.  Again  he 
found  himself  in  disagreement  with  some  with  whose  gen 
eral  policy  he  concurred  when  he  argued  that  the  States 
could  not  omit  to  appoint  Senators  and  electors.  Webster 
insisted  that  the  first  resolution  adopted  by  the  Federal  Con 
vention,  "  That  a  national  government  ought  to  be  estab 
lished,"  etc.,  was  substantially  included  in  the  revised  form, 
"  Government  of  the  United  States,"  and  that  the  conven 
tion  rejected  compact,  league,  and  confederation,  and  set 
themselves  about  framing  the  constitution  of  a  national  gov 
ernment.  He  averred  that  they  accomplished  what  they 
undertook,  the  popular  basis  having  been  expressed  in  the 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     285 

very  words  of  the  Constitution,  "  We,  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution." 
The  States  were  established  by  the  people  of  the  ,,.We  the  ^^ 
States ;  this  Constitution  by  the  people  of  all  the  pie." 
States.  How  could,  he  asked  again,  how  could  a  State  undo 
what  a  whole  people  had  done  ?  The  whole  question  turned 
on  the  right  of  interpretation  of  the  powers  conferred  in  the 
Constitution.  Alluding  to  Calhoun's  doctrine  Government  by 
of  majorities,  he  said,  "Whoever  denounces  majorities. 
the  government  of  majorities  denounces  the  government  of 
his  own  country  and  denounces  all  free  governments."  And 
he  asked,  "  How  far  does  South  Carolina  respect  the  rights 
of  minorities  ?"  He  held  that  while  nullification  was  as  dis 
tinctly  revolutionary  as  secession,  it  did  not  seek  a  revolu 
tion  of  so  respectable  a  character  as  the  latter.  On  the 
rejection  of  the  power  to  tax  manufactures  and  establish 
public  institutions  of  learning,  he  observed,  "  The  conven 
tion  supposed  it  had  done  enough  (at  any  rate,  it  had  done 
all  it  intended)  when  it  had  given  to  Congress  in  general 
terms  the  power  to  lay  imposts  and  the  power  to  regulate 
trade.  Will  gentlemen  undertake  to  deny  that  [the  First] 
Congress  did  act  on  the  avowed  principle  of  protection  ?" 
As  if  forgetful  of  his  own  attitude  and  that  of  Massachu 
setts  prior  to  1828,  especially  of  his  unanswerable  speech  of 
April,  1824,  he  boldly  extended  a  challenge  in  these  terms : 
"  But,  sir,  I  hold  South  Carolina  to  her  ancient,  her  cool, 
her  uninfluenced,  her  deliberate  opinions."  In  his  simple 
and  beautiful  peroration,  which  was  free  from  the  exaggera 
tion  which  marked  his  more  famous  speech  of  1830,  Webster 
declared  that  "  among  the  practical  sentiments  of  this  people 
the  love  of  Union  was  still  uppermost."  With  reference 
obviously  to  Clay's  Compromise  bill,  he  said  that  he  relied 
on  no  temporary  expedients.  His  closing  words  were,  "  I 
shall  exert  every  faculty  I  possess  in  aiding  to  prevent  the 
Constitution  from  being  nullified,  destroyed,  or  impaired; 
and  even  should  I  see  it  fall,  I  will  still,  with  a  voice,  feeble 
perhaps,  but  earnest  as  ever  issued  from  human  lips,  and 
with  fidelity  and  zeal  which  nothing  shall  extinguish,  call 


286          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

on  the  people  to  come  to  its  rescue."  The  press  of  the 
attendance  on  the  floor  and  in  the  galleries  and  lobbies  was 
great,  and  as  he  concluded  there  was  a  spontaneous  burst  of 
applause  which  caused  the  galleries  to  be  cleared.  The 
speech  was  not  completed  until  eight  o'clock  at  night.1 

The  friends  of  nullification  fought  on  the  18th  of  Feb 
ruary,  as  they  had  done  before,  for  further  time.  But  the 
administration  party  opposed  the  extension  just 
as  strenuously  as  they  had  hitherto  done.2  An 
amendment  proposed  by  Forsyth  and  modified  at  Kane's 
suggestion,  the  purposes  of  which  was  to  limit  the  existence 
of  the  entire  act  and  not  simply  of  the  first  and  fifth  sec 
tions  to  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  and  limit 
ing  all  suits  under  the  act  pending  at  the  time  of  its  expira 
tion,  was  rejected.  Calhoun  voted  for,  Clay  and  Webster 
against  this  amendment.  Poindexter  attempted  to  make  a 
diversion  by  proposing  a  new  section,  providing  an  appro 
priation  (left  blank)  for  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  the 
measure.  Grundy  objected  that  no  money  was  wanted, 
which  caused  Calhoun  to  express  his  surprise.  Grundy 
retorted  that  the  Senator  was  more  competent  than  any 
other  person  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  would 
be  any  necessity  for  the  employment  of  force.  In  rejoinder 
the  South  Carolina  Senator  said  that  the  whole  business 
indicated  an  unsoundness  of  legislation.  lie  was  amazed 
at  the  course  which  had  been  taken.  There  would  be 
no  collision  unless  it  proceeded  from  the  conduct  of  che 
general  government.  The  yeas  on  Poindexter's  motion 
were  only  five — Bibb,  Calhoun,  Mangum,  Moore,  and  Poin 
dexter.3  A  subsequent  motion  by  Bibb  to  limit 
rorcenbiisrftbe  the  exPenses  to  three  millions  of  dollars  was 
rejected  by  a  vote  of  four  to  thirty-eight.  The 
remainder  of  the  day  appears  to  have  been  consumed  in  a 
debate  between  Forsyth  and  Miller.  Forsyth,  although  a 
man  of  more  ability,  maintained  himself,  if  at  all,  with 
difficulty.  The  Senator  from  Georgia  said  that  nullification 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  587.          3  Ibid.,  p.  589.          8  Ibid.,  p.  592. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     287 

bore  the  appearance  of  sneaking  into  war.  The  Senator 
from  South  Carolina  thought  that  the  Senator's  idea  was 
purely  original.  "  If,"  he  remarked,  "  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  dislikes  South  Carolina  nullification  because  it 
savors  of  sneaking  into  a  fight,  he  must  permit  me  to  reply 
that  I  dislike  Georgia  nullification  so  far  as  it  savored  of 
sneaking  out  of  a  fight." 

The  Revenue  Collection  bill  was  read  a  third  time  and 
put  upon  its  passage  on  the  19th  of  February.  Poindexter 
made  an  extended  speech,  which  was  not  con-  . 

1  February  19. 

eluded  until  the  following  day.1      He  argued 
that  although  the  Constitution  in  some  of  its  features  might 
be  executed  by  the  popular  will,  the  original  character  of 
the  government  was  not  thereby  changed.     He  committed 
an  error,  avoided  by  his  friends  in  the  debate, 

*  f  '     Debate  on  the 

when  he  assumed  that  because  the  machinery  passage  of  the 
for  setting  up  the  Constitution  was  the  con 
federation  and  the  States  individually  the  completed  work 
was  not  ratified  by  the  people  immediately.  But  the  drift 
of  his  long  argument,  which  was  not  very  gracefully  pre 
sented,  was  that  the  whole  people  as  a  mass  did  not  adopt 
the  Constitution.  He  drew,  as  others  had  done,  upon  the 
history  of  the  government  for  examples  of  conflict  between 
the  State  and  federal  powers.  Among  the  authorities  cited 
was  Hamilton  in  the  New  York  convention  which  ratified 
the  Constitution,  whom  he  quoted  as  saying  that  coercion 
was  one  of  maddest  projects  that  was  ever  devised.2  Poin 
dexter  read  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  and  of  public 
meetings  to  convict  Webster  of  inconsistency  on  the  subject 
of  the  tariff  and  the  enforcement  of  measures  deemed  op 
pressive  in  New  England.  Among  Webster's  votes  thus 
cited  were  those  in  the  House  of  Representatives  refusing 
supplies  to  carry  on  the  war  with  Great  Britain.3 

On  the  last  day  of  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  this  ques- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  602-661. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  630  ;  Hamilton's  Works. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  656. 


288          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

tion  Poindexter  was  followed  by  Grundy  and  Ewing.1  The 
latter's  was  a  very  subtle  argument.  The  people  have  the 

right  to    create  or  modify  their   government. 

The  right  is  put  beyond  cavil  when  the  peo 
ple,  regularly  convened,  adopt  the  change.  He  did  not 
object  to  the  term  compact;  the  Constitution  was,  indeed, 
a  new  social  compact.  But  it  did  not  follow  that  the  par 
ties  to  it  had  the  right  to  violate  or  annul  it.  Sovereignty, 
in  his  view,  was  alienable  and  divisible.  Calhoun  proposed 
that  the  final  vote  should  not  be  taken  until  next  morning 
when  the  Senate  would  be  full.  All  motions  to  adjourn, 
however,  were  withdrawn  or  voted  down.2  The  bill  passed 

by  thirty-one  yeas  to  one  nay — Tyler.     Reasons 

The  Force  bill        J  J  J  J  J 

passes  the  sen-   for  absence  assigned  the  next  day  on  the  appli 
cation  of  Bibb  for  leave  to  record  their  votes 
showed  great  indifference  or  affected  indifference  on  the 
part'  of  the  nullifiers  and  their  friends. 

Clay's  tariff  bill  was  reported  from  the  select  committee 
with  amendments  on  the  21st  of  February.  After  a  short 
debate  these  amendments  were  agreed  to  upon 
ciay's  tariff  bin  Mr.  Clay's  suggestion.3  He  explained  the  bill 
in  reference  to  objections  urged  by  Forsyth 
and  Dickerson.  "Webster  opposed  both  bill  and  amend 
ments.  In  all  the  consideration  of  this  measure  from  the 
first  day  there  was  grave  difference,  not  only  between  its 
friends  and  avowed  enemies,  but  between  the  two  bodies  of 
Home  vaiua-  ^s  supporters,  on  the  question  of  a  home  valua 
tion  of  imports,  tion  of  imports  in  the  adjustment  of  duties.4 
Clay  admitted  the  impracticability  of  establishing  the  system 
at  that  time,  but  desired  to  have  the  principle  acknowledged. 
The  amendment  providing  for  it  was  advocated  by  Clay, 
Holmes,  Clayton,  and  Poindexter,  and  opposed  by  Smith, 
Forsyth,  Calhoun,  Dallas,  Kane,  Silsbee,  and  Tyler.  The 
objections  to  the  proposition  were  various :  that  it  was  incon- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  661-676,  676-687. 

2  The  last  vote  on  adjournment  showed  the  presence  of  five  only  of  the 
enemies  of  the  measure. 

*  Register  of  Debates,  p.  694.  *  Ibid. ,  et  seq. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1838.     289 

venient  and  unjust;  that  it  prevented  uniformity  in  the 
operation  of  the  revenue  laws  as  prescribed  by  the  Consti 
tution,  and  built  up  some  ports  at  the  expense  of  others.1 
Calhoun  said  that  according  to  his  present  impressions  he 
could  not  vote  for  the  bill  with  this  amendment  in  it.  Clay 
ton  declared  that  he  could  not  support  the  bill  without  the 
amendment.2  He  observed  that  he  voted  for  the  measure 
on  the  ground  that  it  might  save  South  Carolina  from  her 
self.  But  Calhoun  hoped  that  the  gentleman  would  not 
touch  that  question.  He  entreated  him  to  believe  that 
South  Carolina  had  no  fears  for  herself.  She 
sought  not  to  relieve  herself  only,  but  the  whole  cilresUn  south 


nation,  from  oppressive  legislation.  Again  he 
averred  that  it  was  not  his  wish  that  there 
should  be  a  feeling  of  victory  on  either  side.3  Clayton 
showed  a  disposition  to  table  the  bill  for  the  time  being, 
announcing  his  disbelief  that  it  would  pass  in  the  seven 
days  remaining  of  the  session.  But  Clay  and  Poindexter 
expressed  the  hope  that  the  measure  would  not  be  defeated 
upon  speculative  points  and  by  numerous  amendments  and 
debate  thereon.  Moore's  amendment  —  a  proviso  "that  no 
valuation  be  adopted  that  will  operate  unequally  in  different 
ports  of  the  United  States"  —  was  advocated  by  Black,  Cal 
houn,  Moore,  and  Forsyth,  and  opposed  by  Holmes.  The 
debate  was  resumed  on  this  point  on  the  22d  of 

1  f  .  February  22. 

February.  Hill  fought  the  bill,  with  or  without 
amendment.  Smith  said  that  there  was  no  reason  to  sup 
pose  that  it  would  satisfy  South  Carolina,  but  somewhat  in 
consistently  added  that  she  would  not  be  satisfied  with  it 
unless  she  had  discovered  that  she  had  gone  too  far,  and 
wished  to  retrace  her  steps.4  Notwithstanding  the  predic 
tions  of  the  Senators  from  Kentucky  and  South  Carolina, 
that  the  bill  would  be  regarded  as  permanent,  he  predicted 
that  the  pressure  would  be  so  great  on  the  next  Congress  it 


1  New  York,  according  to  some  of  the  speakers,  was  the  favored  port 
under  the  operation  of  the  principle. 

a  Register  of  Debates,  p.  697.          8  Ibid.,  p.  700.          4  Ibid.,  p.  705. 

19 


290  A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

would  be  compelled  to  revise  it.1  Wright  did  not  consider 
the  provision  binding  on  future  Congresses.  But  this  was 
not  his  only  objection.  Foreign  valuation  was  preferable, 
because  competition  to  reduce  valuation,  which  would  take 
place  in  various  quarters,  would  result  unfavorably  to  manu 
facturers  by  causing  the  price  of  home  manufactures  to  fall.2 
Webster  contended  that  home  valuation  to  any  extent  was 
impracticable.  He  favored  specific  duties.  Clayton  insisted 
that  home  valuation  was  not  only  practicable,  but  highly 
important.  Webster  claimed  that  the  practice  of  laying  a 
general  ad  valorem  valuation  was  unprecedented.  Clayton 
argued  that  goods  would  go  where  the  price  was  the  highest 
and  where  the  government  would  derive  most  from  the  sale. 
Amendments  Moore's  amendment  was  rejected.3  Dickerson's 
rejected.  amendment,  which  was  to  leave  the  details  of 

the  home  valuation  of  imports  to  the  President  and  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  was  generally  opposed,  and  lost  without 
division.4  Upon  Clay's  amendment  Benton  observed  that  it 
would  destroy  the  effect  and  turn  into  a  mere  illusion  the  ulti 
mate  reduction  to  twenty  per  cent,  as  proposed  in  the  bill.  It 
would  be  also  almost  fatal  to  Southern  ports.  It  would  create 
additional  expense,  confer  patronage,  beget  rivalries  between 
importing  cities,  and  injure  merchants  by  the  detention 
and  handling  of  their  goods.5  An  amendment  by  Bobbins 
providing  that  if  the  home  valuation  regulation  should  not 
be  established  by  Congress  on  or  before  1842  the  bill  should 
cease  to  have  effect,  and  be  superseded  by  the  tariff  of  1832, 
was  rejected  without  a  division.  As  the  question  upon 
caihoun  states  Clay's  amendment  was  about  to  be  taken  Cal- 
his  reasons  for  houn  remarked  that  it  became  necessary  for 
ciay?  amend-  him  to  determine 6  whether  he  should  vote  for 
or  against  it.  He  must  be  permitted  again  to 
express  his  regret  that  the  Senator  had  thought  proper  to 
move  it.  His  objection  still  remains  strong  against  it,  but 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  707.          2  Ibid.,  p.  709.          s  Ibid.,  p.  711. 
4  Ibid.  5  Ibid.,  p.  715. 

6  That  is,  to  re-determine. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     291 

as  it  seemed  to  be  conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  fate  of  the 
measure  depended  on  the  fate  of  the  amendment,  feeling  as 
he  did  a  satisfaction  to  see  the  question  terminated,  he  had 
made  up  his  mind,  not,  however,  without  much  hesitation, 
not  to  interpose  his  vote  against  the  adoption  of  the  amend 
ment.  But  in  voting  for  it  he  wished  it  distinctly  to  be 
understood  that  he  did  it  upon  two  considerations:  first, 
that  no  valuation  would  be  adopted  that  should  come  in 
conflict  with  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  which  declares 
that  duties,  excises,  and  imposts  shall  be  uniform ;  and  in 
the  next  place,  that  none  would  be  adopted  which  would 
make  the  duties  themselves  a  part  of  the  element  of  a  home 
valuation.  He  felt  justified  in  concluding  that  neither  would 
be  adopted,  as  the  one  came  in  conflict  with  a  provision  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  other  would  involve  the  glaring 
absurdity  of  imposing  duties  on  duties.  He  said  that  he 
wished  the  reporters  for  the  press  to  notice  particularly  what 
he  was  saying,  as  he  intended  his  declaration  to  be  part  of 
the  proceedings.  Believing  then,  for  the  reasons  which  he 
had  stated,  that  it  was  not  contemplated  that  any  regulation 
of  the  home  valuation  should  come  in  conflict  with  the  pro 
visions  of  the  Constitution  which  he  had  cited,  nor  involve 
the  absurdity  of  laying  taxes  upon  taxes,  he  had  made  up 
his  mind  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  amendment.1  Smith  re 
marked  that  any  declaration  of  views  and  motives  under 
which  any  individual  Senator  might  vote  would  have  no  in 
fluence  in  1842.  They  would  be  forgotten  long  before  that 
time  arrived.  The  law  must  rest  upon  the  interpretation  of 
its  words  alone.  Calhoun  replied  that  he  could  not  help 
that.  He  should  endeavor  to  do  his  duty.  Clayton  ob 
served  that  there  was  certainly  no  ambiguity  in  the  phrase 
ology  of  the  amendment.  The  home  valuation  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Clay  was  then  adopted  by  the  subjoined 
vote:  Yeas — Bell,  Bibb,  Black,  Calhoun,  Chambers,  Clay, 
Clayton,  Ewing,  Foot,  Frelinghuysen,  Hill,  Holmes,  Johns 
ton,  King,  Knight,  Miller,  Moore,  Naudain,  Poindexter, 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  716. 


292          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Prentiss,  Rives,  Bobbins,  Sprague,  Tomlinson,  Tyler,  Wil- 

kins,  twenty-six ;  nays — Benton,  Buckner,  Dallas,  Dickerson, 

Dudley,  Forsytli,  Grundy,  Kane,  Robinson,  Seymour,  Sils- 

bee,  Smith,  Waggaman,  Webster,  White,  Wright,  sixteen.1 

This  was  the  test  vote  on  the  Compromise  measure,  and 

afterwards  the  contest  was   simply  to  make    a   consistent 

record.     The  coalition  between  the  great  leaders 

Test  vote.  . 

The  coalition  of  protection  and  anti-protection  was  complete 
triumphant.  an(j  yjctoriOus.  The  one  was  actuated,  or  pro 
fessed  to  be  actuated,  by  the  fear  that  otherwise  the  princi 
ple  of  protection  was  lost;  the  other  was  moved  by  the 
peril  of  his  situation  and  by  the  prospect  of  a  practical  tri 
umph  over  his  hated  rival,  the  President.  Loftier  motives 
undoubtedly  influenced  both  Clay  and  Calhoun.  The  meas 
ure  was  one  of  conciliation.  It  was  offered  by  the  only 
Motives  of  clay  ac^or  m  these  events  who  had  the  power  to  make 
and  caihoun.  nis  tender  of  the  olive  branch  acceptable.  It 
was  accepted  because  it  could  with  dignity  be  accepted  by 
men  who  were  too  haughty  to  recede  before  menace  and 
too  conscious  of  the  substantial  justice  of  their  cause,  however 
it  might  appear  to  others,  to  be  willing  to  barter  it  for  any 
thing  less  than  a  great  part  of  that  for  which  they  had  so 
many  years  contended.  On  the  one  side  were  arrayed  the 
Jackson,  or,  as  it  began  to  be  called,  the  Democratic,  party 
and  a  certain  portion  of  the  National  Republicans,  soon  to 
be  called  Whigs ;  on  the  other,  the  majority  of  the  National 
Republicans  under  their  trusted  leader,  the  nullifiers  and 
their  State  rights  friends,  and  three  or  four  of  the  Ad 
ministration  Senators.  The  Union  at  any  cost  was  the 
principle  of  action  of  the  former ;  the  Union  by  conciliation 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  latter.  As  the  Union  had  before 
been  saved  in  peace,  so  now  it  was  to  be  preserved,  and  the 
same  commanding  but  flexible  figure  of  grace  and  magnet 
ism  was  to  be  the  Salvator  Patrise. 

A  debate  began  on  the  22d  and  was  continued  on  the  23d 
of  February  on  Smith's  motion,  suggested  by  Tyler,  to  ex- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  716  ;  Senate  Journal,  p.  204. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.      293 

punge  the  part  of  the  bill  which  increased  duties  on  plains, 
kerseys,  and  kendal  cottons.  Incidentally  connected  with  this 
was  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  Senate  to  originate  bills 
professedly  to  reduce  revenue,  but  containing  a  feature  that 
would  increase  it  as  to  one  item.  Smith  modified  his  motion 
so  as  to  strike  out  the  whole  second  section  which  contained 
the  provision.  Benton  said  that  the  American  system,  as  a 
whole,  would  be  given  up  in  1842. l  "Webster  contended 
against  Clayton  that  this  was  a  revenue  measure  and  could 
not  originate  in  the  Senate.  Clay  and  Clayton  averred  that 
the  Senate  had  again  and  again  decided  that  it  could  originate 
such  bills.  Webster  declared  that  he  would  go  as  far  as  any 
man  for  conciliation  on  proper  principles.  The  other  side, 
he  showed,  were  impelled  by  different  reasons  in  supporting 
the  bill ;  one  because  it  secured  protection,  another  because 
it  destroyed  protection.2  In  reply,  Clay  remarked  that  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  opposed  this  proposition  of 
peace  and  harmony  and  wished  to  send  forth  the  menace  of 
force  alone.  "  The  gentleman,"  retorted  Webster,  "  has  no 
authority  for  making  that  assertion."  While  in  one  portion 
of  his  remarks  Clay  affirmed  that  his  purpose  was  double, 
to  secure  protection  and  to  conciliate  the  South,  in  another 
place  he  observed  that  his  object  was  "protection  and  pro 
tection  alone."  He  favored  a  gradual  reduction.  Again  he 
said  that  he  had  been  anxious  to  abolish  duties  on  raw  cot 
ton  that  he  might  bring  the  South  to  Congress  to  ask  for 
protection.  He  himself  stood  on  the  same  ground  of  pro 
tection  on  which  he  had  always  stood.  He  averred  that  he 
deeply  regretted  the  course  of  Webster,  "  who  had  opposed 
everything  and  proposed  nothing." 3  In  his  rejoinder  Web 
ster  called  attention  to  his  resolutions,  offered  some  time 
before.  The  motion  to  strike  out  the  second  section  of  the 
bill  was  lost, — ayes,  fourteen ;  noes,  twenty-nine.  By  nearly 
the  same  vote  Smith's  amendment  to  Kane's  amendment, 
the  effect  of  which  motions  was  to  provide  that  nothing  in 
the  act  should  be  construed  to  extend  to  existing  duties  on 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  721.       » Ibid.,  p.  723.       8  Ibid.,  p.  724. 


294          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

lead  in  pigs,  bars,  or  shorts,  leaden  shot,  bar  iron,  castings, 
cannon,  shells,  gunpowder,  and  certain  other  articles,  was  re- 
rejected,  and  the  original  amendment  itself  was  negatived.1 
The  motion  of  Forsyth  to  strike  out  the  third  and  sixth 
sections,  which  were  intended  to  bind  future  Congresses, 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  thirteen  to  twenty-eight.  On  these 
questions  Webster  voted  with  Benton  and  the  other  Sena 
tors  of  the  Jackson  party.  The  nullifiers  and  their  friends, 
the  bulk  of  the  National  Republicans,  and  one  or  two  of 
the  Administration  Senators  constituted  the  negative  ma 
jority.  Benton's  motion  for  a  reduction  of  the  drawback 
on  exported  articles  manufactured  in  the  United  States  from 
foreign  materials  subject  to  duty  in  the  same  proportion  as 
the  reduction  in  the  bill  was  lost  after  discussion.  The  effort 
of  Wright  to  restore  the  duty  on  wool  costing  less  than  eight 
cents  at  the  place  of  exportation  to  the  rate  of  1828,  the  pur 
pose  having  been  to  accompany  the  change  of  the  tariff  on 
woollen  goods,  was  abortive.  The  proposition  received  only 
seven  votes,  one  of  which  was  Webster's.2 

Prolonged  discussion  took  place  on  the  amendment, 
which  provided  that  after  1842  such  duties  should  be  levied 
as  an  economical  expenditure  might  require. 
It  was  contended  by  the  Senators  in  opposition 
that  these  words,  although  not  so  intended,  would  be  con 
strued  by  Southern  gentlemen  in  1842  as  an  abandonment 
of  the  protective  policy.  Clay  and  Clayton  regarded  the 
words  as  authorizing  no  such  construction,  and  denied  that 
any  one  would  be  justified  in  inferring  that  there  would  be 
an  abandonment  of  the  system  of  protection.  Forsyth 
thought  that  the  clause  was  an  absurdity  on  which  an  argu 
ment  either  for  or  against  protection  might  be  erected ;  but 
as  among  the  many  absurdities  in  the  bill  it  was  the  only  one 
agreeable  to  him,  he  would  vote  for  it.  A  motion  to  strike 
the  words  out  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  fourteen  to  twenty-two. 
The  bill  then  came  up  on  its  third  reading.3 

On  the  25th  of  February  Webster  occupied  the  floor. 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  724.  x  Ibid.,  p.  726.  8  Ibid. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1883.     295 

Both  he  and  Clay,  who  followed,  began  their  remarks  by 
personal  compliments  to  each  other.  Webster  also  praised 
the  character,  zeal,  and  services  of  Calhoun.  February  25. 
He  opposed  the  bill  because  it  imposed  a  re-  Web 
striction  upon  future  legislation,  and  because  it  seemed  to 
yield  the  constitutional  power  of  protection.  The  Southern 
politicians  were  masters  of  the  game,  and  they  knew  it. 
He  viewed  the  bill  as  a  surrender  of  all  the  interests  of  the 
smaller  capitalists  and  a  concession  in  favor  of  overgrown 
monopolists.1  He  thought  that  his  constituents  would  ex 
cuse  him  for  surrendering  their  interests,  but  they  would 
not  forgive  him  for  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.2  In  his 
reply  to  Webster,  Clay  said  that  the  measure  was  a  com 
promise,  but  it  imposed  and  could  impose  no  restriction 
upon  the  will  or  power  of  a  future  Congress.  It  was  de 
clared  to  be  far  from  the  purpose  of  those  who  supported 
the  bill  to  abandon  or  surrender  the  policy  of  protecting 
American  industry.  The  expected  plethoric  condition  of 
the  Treasury  had  impressed  every  public  man  with  the 
necessity  of  some  modification  of  the  principle  of  protection, 
so  far  as  it  depended  on  high  duties.  He  defined  the 
difference  between  the  bill  and  Webster's  resolutions  as 
consisting  in  the  fact  that  the  former  prescribed  a  limit  for 
discrimination,  while  the  resolutions  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  laid  down  no  such  limit.  He  repeated  his 
twofold  reasons  for  introducing  the  measure,  and  outlined 
the  dangers  to  which  he  thought  the  tariff  was  exposed.  A 
majority  of  the  adverse  party  were  hostile  to  it.  Protection 
would  lose  three  members  in  the  Senate,  and  was  not  sure 
of  gaining  one.  There  was  a  considerable  accession  to  the 
other  party  in  the  House.  Two  New  England  States  had 
changed  recently  against  the  system,  and  other  States 
North  and  East  were  showing  remarkable  indifference. 
Discontents,  coextensive  with  the  entire  South  and  extend 
ing  to  the  North,  were  multiplying.  Judging,  he  said, 
from  appearances,  protection  would  be  in  the  minority  at 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  728.  2  Ibid.,  p.  729. 


296          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  next  session.  He  appealed  to  Webster  to  show  how  the 
tariff  was  to  be  saved  against  "  this  united  and  irresistible 
force."  There  was  some  reason  for  believing  that  twenty 
per  cent,  might  be  sufficient  protection  after  1842.  He  and 
Clayton,  he  stated,  had  been  out-  voted  in  the  committee  on 
the  proposition  to  withdraw  protection  from  cotton.1  Since 
the  passage  of  the  Force  bill  some  measure  of  conciliation 
was  necessary.  He  answered  the  charge  that  he  had  been 
actuated  in  the  matter  by  ambition  by  the  assertion  that  if 
he  had  thought  only  of  himself  he  would  never  have  intro 
duced  the  bill.2 

On  the  next  day  the  Senate  considered  Calhoun's  resolu 
tions  on  the  nature  and  powers  of  the  federal  government. 
In  support  of  them  their  author  made  an  in- 
comparable  argument.    He  was  upon  his  favorite 


ment  by  cai-    orroun(j.     The  subject  was  one  upon  which  he 

houn  in  sup- 

port  of  his  was  perhaps  more  thoroughly  prepared  to  speak 
than  any  other  man  living.  The  time,  too,  was 
well  chosen.  He  was  vindicating  his  own  and  his  State's 
opinions,  not  as  one  who  looks  in  dismay  for  defeat  and 
disgrace,  but  as  one  who  is  already  assured  of  substantial 
victory.  For  the  first  half  of  the  speech  the  chain  of 
reasoning  seems  absolutely  unassailable,  conceding  his 
premises.  In  the  latter  portion  two  or  three  positions  are 
assumed  which  are  not  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  settled 
principles  of  any  school,  and  which  he  does  not  succeed  in 
maintaining.  But  altogether  this  must  be  considered,  if 
judged  by  any  correct  standard  of  criticism,  to  be  the  most 
powerful  speech  he  had  made  up  to  that  time.3  In  the 
outset  he  complained  of  "Webster  for  giving  the  discussion 
a  personal  direction,  but  did  not  complain  of  him  for  re 
plying  to  the  resolutions  in  a  speech  on  the  Force  bill,  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  737. 

J  For  this  speech  see  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  729-742.  The  debate 
was  continued  by  others.  The  reporter  collated  several  of  Mr.  Clay's 
speeches  on  the  subject  with  the  one  under  consideration.  See,  also, 
Clay's  Speeches,  edited  by  Greeley,  vol  ii.  pp.  139,  157. 

3  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  750-774  ;  also  Works  of  Calhoun,  ii.  262. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     297 

resolutions  having  been  laid  aside.  Webster  was  right  in 
directing  his  argument  exclusively  against  the  first  resolu 
tion.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  having  denied  to 
him  the  right  to  use  the  expression  "  constitutional  compact," 
he  read  a  whole  passage  from  the  speech  of  that  Senator, 
delivered  on  the  26th  of  January,  1830,  wherein  the  ex 
pression  occurred.  The  Constitution  itself  was  spoken  of 
in  that  speech  as  a  compact.1  But  Calhoun  modified  his 
resolution  so  as  to  make  it  accord  with  "Webster's  sugges 
tion  :  "  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  United  States  ar<f~T~~ 
united  as  parties  to  a  compact  under  the  title  of  the  Consti-l 
tution  of  the  United  States,  which  the  people  of  each  State ! 
ratified,"  etc.,  the  words  "  constitutional  compact"  and  . 
"  accede"  having  been  omitted.  "  For  my  part,  with  my  ; 
poor  powers  of  conception,"  he  observed  when  he  had  done 
this,  "  I  cannot  perceive  the  slightest  difference  between  the 
resolution  as  first  introduced  and  as  it  is  proposed  to  be 
amended  in  conformity  to  the  views  of  the  Senator." 
Having  disposed  of  Webster's  verbal  criticism,  he  passed  to 
the  consideration  of  that  gentleman's  assault  of  "  the  very 
horn  of  the  citadel  of  State  rights."  "  The  Senator  clearly 
perceived,"  he  said,  "  that  if  the  Constitution  be  a  compact, 
it  was  impossible  to  deny  the  assertions  contained  in  the 
resolution,  or  to  resist  the  consequences  which  I  had  drawn 
from  them,  and  accordingly  he  directed  his  whole  fire 
against  that  point ;  but  after  so  vast  an  expenditure  of  am 
munition  not  the  slightest  impression,  so  far  as  I  can  per 
ceive,  has  been  made."  After  examination  of  the  notes 
which  he  had  made  of  the  Senator's  speech,  he  was  at  a 
loss  to  know  whether  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senator  our 
Constitution  was  a  compact  or  not,  though  almost  the  entire 
argument  was  directed  to  that  point.  Calhoun  collated  • 
sentences  showing  that  it  was  the  purpose  to  prove  a  gov 
ernment,  not  a  compact,  and  the  right  of  secession  if  the 


1  Still  more  unequivocally,  Webster,  in  his  great  speech  of  1850  on  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union,  employs  the  phrase  "the  compact  of  the 
Constitution." 


298          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

i  latter.  Webster  had  also  said  that  it  was  a  constitution, 
I  not  a  compact,  and  that  the  Constitution  rested  on  compact, 
'  but  was  not  a  compact  itself.  In  discussing  the  prohibitions 
by  the  Constitution  on  the  States,  Webster  had  observed 
that  the  language  used  was  that  of  a  superior  to  an  inferior, 
and  therefore  not  the  language  of  a  compact,  which  implies, 
•  the  equality  of  the  parties.  As  a  proof,  Webster  had  cited 
the  several  provisions  that  no  State  shall  enter  into  treaties 
of  alliance  and  confederation,  lay  imposts,  etc.,  without  the 
consent  of  Congress.  Calhoun  showed  that  if  Webster  had 
turned  to  the  articles  of  confederation,  which  he  acknowl 
edged  to  have  been  a  compact,  he  would  have  found  that 
the  Constitution  borrowed  those  very  prohibitory  provisions 
from  that  instrument.  If  he  had  extended  his  researches, 
he  would  have  found  that  it  was  the  habitual  language 
used  in  treaties  whenever  a  stipulation  was  made  against 
the  performance  of  any  act.  He  cited  Jay's  treaty  of  1793 
with  Great  Britain,  in  which  the  very  language  used  in  the 
Constitution  was  employed.  He  averred  that  Webster  had 
asked,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  Where  are  the  evidences  of 
stipulation?  The  State  ratifications  cited  by  the  Senator 
on  the  occasion  contained  stipulations.  In  reply  to  the 
denial  that  there  were  stipulations  in  the  Constitution,  he 
declared  that  that  instrument  was  "  a  mass  of  stipulation." 
Calhoun  continued :  "  What  is  that  but  a  stipulation  to 
which  the  Senator  refers  when  he  states  in  the  course  of  his 
argument  that  each  State  had  agreed  to  participate  in  the 
sovereignty  of  the  others?"  Again:  "He  asked,  with  a 

,  marked  emphasis,  '  Can  a  compact  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  ?'  I  ask  in  return  whether  treaties  are  not  com 
pacts,  and  whether  treaties  as  well  as  the  Constitution  are 

I   not  declared  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ?"    Calhoun 

;  does  not  object  to  Webster's  definition  of  the  Constitution 
as  a  fundamental  law,  though  he  said  a  more  appropriate 

! '  one,  better  adapted  to  American  ideas,  could  be  given.  But 
he  held  the  opinion,  which  Webster  had  rejected,  that  the 
fundamental  law  might  be  a  compact.  He  quoted  to  sustain 
his  position  from  Burlamaqui,  Magna  Charta,  and  the  reso- 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     299 

lution  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  1688,  which  latter  de 
clared  the  throne  abdicated  by  James  II. ,  he  having  broken 
the  original  contract  between  the  king  and  the  people. 
Calhoun  then  asked :  "  But  why  should  I  refer  to  writers 
on  the  subject  of  government  or  enquire  into  the  constitu 
tion  of  foreign  states,  when  there  are  such  decisive  proofs 
that  our  Constitution  is  a  compact?  On  this  point  the 
Senator  is  estopped.  I  borrow  from  the  gentleman  and 
thank  him  for  the  word.  His  adopted  State,  which  he  so 
ably  represents  on  this  floor,  and  his  native  State  (the 
States  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire)  both  de 
clared  in  their  ratification  of  the  Constitution  that  it  was  a 
compact."  He  quoted  these  ratifications,  and  proceeded  to 
consider  the  resolutions  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  in  1798, 
and  the  responses  of  Massachusetts  and  other  States.  In 
the  cases  of  Delaware,  New  York,  Connecticut,  New  Hamp 
shire,  and  Vermont  the  replies,  he  assumed,  gave  counte 
nance  to  the  doctrine  by  silence  on  that  head.  One  of  the 
utterances  of  Massachusetts,  however,  was  very  explicit: 
"  That  the  people  in  that  solemn  compact  which  is  declared 
to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,"  etc.  Webster  had 
said  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  compact  because  it  was 
a  government.  "  I  would  ask  the  Senator,"  observed  Cal 
houn,  "  whoever  considered  a  government  when  spoken  of 
as  the  agent  to  execute  the  powers  of  the  Constitution  as 
distinct  from  the  Constitution  itself  as  a  compact  ?  In 
that  light  it  would  be  a  perfect  absurdity."  He  was  un- 
certain^of  the  meaning  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
in  that  part  of  his  argument  where  he  asserted  that  the 
government  was  founded  on  compact,  but  was  no  longer  a 
compact.  "  If  he  meant,  as  I  presume  he  did,  that  the 
compact  is  an  executed  and  not  an  executory  one;  that 
its  object  was  to  create  a  government  and  to  invest  it 
with  a  proper  authority;  and  that  having  executed  this 
office,  it  had  performed  its  functions  and  with  it  had  ceased 
to  exist,  then  we  have  the  extraordinary  avowal  that  the 
Constitution  is  a  dead  letter, — that  it  has  ceased  to  have 
any  binding  effect,  or  any  practical  influence  or  operation. 


300          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

I  had  thought  that  the  Constitution  was  to  endure  forever." 
The  steps  of  State  independence  up  to  ratification,  he 
affirmed,  "  formed  a  body  of  facts  too  clear  to  be  denied 
and  too  strong  to  be  resisted."  It  would  be  a  great  change 
if  ratification  converted  the  American  people  into  one 
people,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  delegated  powers. 
With  the  exception  of  the  words  in  the  preamble,  the  Sen 
ator  had  not  pointed  out  a  single  indication  in  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  great  change  which  he  conceived  had  been 
effected  in  this  respect.  Calhoun  contended  that  these 
words  in  the  preamble,  "We  the  people  of  the  United 
States,"  were  at  least  as  applicable  to  his  own  view  as  to 
that  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  Whatever  might 
be  the  future  meaning  of  this  expression,  it  was  not  appli 
cable  to  the  condition  of  the  States  as  they  existed  under 
the  Constitution,  but  as  it  was  under  the  old  confederation. 
The  Constitution  had  not  yet  been  adopted,  and  the  States  in 
ordaining  it  could  only  speak  of  themselves  in  the  condition 
in  which  they  then  existed,  and  not  in  that  in  which  they 
would  exist  under  the  Constitution.  But  he  did  not  intend 
'  to  leave  this  important  point,  the  last  refuge  of  those  who 
advocated  consolidation,  even  on  this  conclusive  argument. 
He  went  to  the  Constitution  itself,  and  quoted  the  Vllth 
article,  where  ratification  by  nine  States  was  declared  to  be 
sufficient  to  establish  the  Constitution  "  between  the  States 
so  ratifying  the  same."  He  said  further  that  an  argument 
not  much  less  powerful,  but  of  a  different  character,  could 
be  drawn  from  the  reserved  powers  to  "  the  States"  in  the 
Xth  amendment. 

From  "  these  established  facts"  Calhoun  deduced  the  con 
sequences  that  ours  was  a  federal  system,  a  system  of  States 
arranged  in  a  federal  union,  and  each  retaining 

Deductions.      ,A      ,.   -  .   .  .  TT      j 

its  distinct  existence  and  sovereignty.  He  de 
clared  that  our  government  had  every  attribute  belonging 
to  a  federal  system.  It  was  founded  on  compact ;  it  was 
formed  by  sovereign  communities ;  and  was  binding  between 
them  in  their  sovereign  capacities.  The  present  Constitu 
tion  was  the  act  of  States  themselves,  or,  what  was  the  same 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     301 

thing,  of  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  formed  aj 
union  of  them  as  sovereign  communities.  He  argued  that  I 
there  was  no  more  reason  why  a  federal  union  should  blend 
into  a  mass  than  there  would  be  if  the  parts  were  governments 
rather  than  people.  Indeed,  Calhoun  went  to  the  verge  of 
his  argument,  if  he  did  not  go  further,  when  he  assumed 
that  the  old  confederation  was  not  a  constitution  or  govern 
ment.  This  he  said  was  due  to  the  difference  of  origin, — 
the  one  from  the  governments  of  States,  the  other  from  the 
people.  "  According  to  our  American  conception,  the  peo 
ple  alone  can  form  constitutions  or  governments,  and  not 
their  agents."  l 

Where  does  sovereignty  reside  ?  He  answered :  In  the 
federal  system,  in  the  parts,  not  the  whole.  Ours,  he  de 
fined,  was  a  government  of  twenty-four  sover-  In  the  federal 
eignties,  united  by  constitutional  compact,  for  system  sover- 

.,  .   .  ,    .  ,T  i      eignty    resides 

the  purpose  of  exercising  certain  powers  through  m  the  parts  and 
a  common  government  as  their  joint  agent,  and  r 
not  a  union  of  twenty-four  sovereignties  into  one,  which 
would  be  a  consolidation.  Modifications  in  the  conditions 
of  States  were  modifications  of  powers  exercised,  not  of  the 
sovereignty  itself.  The  provision  as  to  change  of  the  Con 
stitution  by  three-fourths  of  the  States  furnished  strong  evi 
dence  that  the  sovereignty  was  in  the  States  severally.  It 
followed  that  the  allegiance  of  the  people  was  to  their  sev 
eral  States,  and  that  treason  consisted  in  resistance  to  the 
joint  authority  of  the  States  united,  and  not,  as 
had  been  contended,  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  which  had  only  the  right  of  punishing. 
He  said  that  these  conclusions  showed  that  the  States  could 
violate  no  law ;  that  the  worst  that  could  be  imputed  to 
them  was  a  violation  of  compact,  for  which  they  and  not 
their  citizens  were  responsible.2  The  system  comprehended 

1  The  American  conception  since  the  Constitution  went  into  operation. 

2  He  does  not  make  sufficiently  clear  in  this  place  that  it  is  individual 
citizens  whom  he  intends,  and  not  the  body  of  citizens  acting  in  a  sover 
eign  capacity.     According  to  his  theory,  the  States  and  the  people  of  the 
States  were  synonymous  expressions  in  the  sense  here  referred  to. 


302          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

but  one  government  properly  considered,  the  general  and 
State  government  being  distinct  in  operation  but  forming 
parts  of  an  entire  system  of  which  the  State  was  the  basis. 
He  met  "Webster's  argument  that  a  government  had  a  right 
to  judge  of  its  powers  in  this  manner :  Admit  it,  and  how 
would  he  withhold  from  the  State  governments  the  right  of 
judging  which  he  has  attributed  to  the  general  government  ? 
The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  felt  the  force  of  this  argu 
ment  and  fell  back  on  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which 
declared  the  Constitution  and  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Calhoun  said  that  no 
one  had  ever  denied  this.  But  it  was  equally  undeniable 
that  laws  not  so  made  were  of  no  authority  whatever,  being 
of  themselves  null  and  void.  The  Senator  from  Massa 
chusetts  saw  this  difficulty  also,  and  attempted  to  meet  it  by 
setting  up  the  right  of  judgment  on  the  part  of  Congress 
and  the  Supreme  Court.  Having  quoted  Webster's  language 
on  this  head,  he  pronounced  it  to  be  "  vague  and  loose 
phraseology."  Calhoun  asked :  "  On  what  principle  would 
he  confer  this  extensive  power  on  the  legislature  and  judi 
ciary,  and  not  on  the  executive  ?"  He  also  desired  to  know 
on  what  principle  it  was  to  be  withheld  from  the  State  gov 
ernments.  He  would  not  repeat  the  argument  made  on 
another  occasion  to  sustain  the  right  of  the  State  govern 
ments,  but  he  quoted  Virginia's  ratification  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  which  asserted  the  right  to  resume  the  powers  granted 
in  the  Constitution  if  they  were  abused.  Webster  had 
quoted  Madison  in  the  Federalist  in  favor  of  the  opposite 
doctrine.  Calhoun  brought  out  Madison's  later  view  in  the 
Virginia  Report  of  1Y99.  The  South  Carolina  Senator  is 
hardly  perspicuous  in  his  statement  of  the  State  veto  power. 
He  never  had  a  correct  view  of  the  subject,  it  would  appear 
from  a  perusal  of  his  doctrine  as  stated  in  earlier  and  later 
speeches  and  his  treatise  on  the  Government.  In  conclusion 
he  replied  to  various  arguments  employed  by  Webster. 
Calhoun  admired  the  courage  and  gallantry  of  the  Senator, 
but  said  that  he  would  find  spirits  as  gallant  as  his  own. 
The  Force  bill  was  more  dangerous  to  liberty  than  the  tariff. 


WISE   OF 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF   18SS.     303 

With  high  prescience  he  expressed  his  amazement  at  For- 
syth's  ominous  reference  to  the  provision  of  the  Constitution 
which  guaranteed  republican  government  to  the  States ;  he 
had  supposed  that  every  Southern  Senator  at  least  would  have 
been  awake  to  the  danger  which  menaced  us  from  that  new 
quarter.  !Nbw,  he  declared,  no  hostile  feelings  combined 
with  political  considerations  on  this  delicate  subject  in  any 
section.  But  it  required  no  stretch  of  the  imagination  to 
see  the  danger  which  one  day  must  come,  if  not  vigilantly 
watched. 

Webster  replied  briefly  and  inconclusively.  Having  reit 
erated  his  views,  he  said  he  hoped  it  was  not  possible  that 
he  should  be  influenced  in  support  or  opposition  of  im 
portant  measures  by  the  purpose,  ascribed  to  Webster's 
him  by  Calhoun,  of  obtaining  favor  in  any  quar-  reply. 
ter  by  hostility  to  that  gentleman.  He  expressed  his  re 
spect  for  Calhoun  and  averred  that  their  private  inter 
course  had  been  one  of  amity  and  kindness.  At  this  point 
the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  arose  and  declared  that 
these  remarks  wrere  such  as  he  himself  had  intended  to 
make.  Webster  explained  his  use  of  the  phraseology, 
"  constitutional  compact,"  in  1830.  He  was  then  speaking 
of  one  part  of  the  agreement  on  which  the  Constitution 
was  founded,  namely,  the  agreement  that  the  slave-holding 
States  should  possess  more  than  an  equal  proportion  of 
Representatives.  There  was  propriety  perhaps  in  calling 
North  Carolina's  adoption  of  the  Constitution  an  accession, 
because  she  had  not  come  into  the  new,  the  old  Union  hav 
ing  been  broken  up.  He,  however,  stood  obstinately  by  his! 
claim  that  "  accede"  was  a  term  unknown  to  all  the  ratifica 
tions  and  to  the  Constitution  itself.  He  contended  that 
Calhoun's  changes  in  his  first  resolution  were  merely  verbal. 
"Let  him  say  nothing  of  compact,  because  the  people  said 
nothing  of  it."  He  asserted  that  Calhoun  had  been  mis 
taken  from  the  ground  which  he  said  Calhoun  had  taken, 
that  the  people  could  make  but  one  government,  and  that 
they  had  not  united  in  establishing  a  constitution  connect 
ing  them  together  as  individuals  under  one  government. 


304          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

The  Yllth  article  had  no  bearing  011  the  question  at  issue  ; 
for  the  word  "  States"  there  meant  "  the  people  of  the 
States,"  and  he  insisted  that  ours  was  a  government  and 
not  a  league  of  independent  States.1 

Sprague  admitted  that  the  States  adopted  the  Constitution 
as  independent  communities,  but  denied  the  doctrine  that 
sovereignty  was  inalienable.  He  said  that  the  whole  his 
tory  of  the  human  race  falsified  that  assumption.2  Forsyth 
is  represented  as  saying  that  by  the  Constitution  the  people 
had  surrendered  their  sovereignty  with  the  exception  of 
equality  of  representation  in  the  House.3 

Grundy  refused  to  withdraw  his  resolutions  in  amend 

ment,  and  Calhoun,  not  desiring  in  the  temper  of  the  Senate 

at  the  time  to  have  other  resolutions  preferred 

Disposition 

made  of  the  to  his  own,  stated  that  he  would  not  call  for 
resolutions.  &  vote.  Grundy's  substitute  would  have  been 
voted  on  first.  On  motion  of  Forsyth  the  resolutions,  were 
laid  on  the  table.4 

It  is  time  we  were  attending  to  the  proceedings  of  this 

eventful  session  in  the  House  of  Representatives.      A  bill 

introduced  on  the  27th  of  December,  1832,  by 

Represent^  °    Verplanck,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  the  Com- 


?  i832Cem~  mittee  on  Ways  and  Means,  was  reported  by 


him  on  the  day  following.  The  President's 
message,  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  had 
been  referred  to  this  committee  on  the  10th  of  December. 
And  as  this  topic  and  that  of  the  conduct  of  affairs  in  South 
Carolina  were  intimately  connected,  it  must  be  stated  here 
that  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  tariff  bill  of  Mr.  Yer- 
planck  was  introduced  the  House  refused  by  a  vote  of  one 
hundred  and  six  to  sixty-five  to  consider  a  resolution  of  re 
quest  offered  by  Adams  calling  upon  the  President  to  fur 
nish  to  the  House  a  copy  of  his  proclamation  of  the  10th  of 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  774-777.   This  speech  is  not  found  in  the  large 
Boston  edition  of  Webster's  Works. 

2  But  the  only  instance  mentioned  by  him  (  Coblentz  )  was  not  in  point, 
for  it  was  not  an  independent  State.    Register  of  Debates,  p.  780. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  784.  4  Ibid.,  p.  785. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  18SS.     305 

December  and  of  the  ordinance  of  the  South  Carolina  con 
vention  to  which  it  referred.1  After  considerable  opposition 
from  the  protectionists  the  House  decided  on  the  7th  of 
January  to  take  up  the  tariff  bill  at  one  o'clock 

J  r.  1833.  January  7. 

each  day  for  consideration.  A  bill  for  the  TheVerpianck 
remission  of  certain  duties  to  importers  who  tanfl 
complained  of  surprise  in  the  passage  of  the  last  tariff  act 
was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Commerce  and  de 
bated  on  the  3d  and  7th  of  January,  1833.3  Burges,  of 
Rhode  Island,  introduced  a  resolution  providing  for  a  com 
mittee  of  one  from  each  State  to  enquire  into  and  report 
on  the  amount  of  money  paid  by  each  State  on  imports, 
on  home  manufactures  exported,  tonnage,  postage,  distilled 
spirits,  and  other  articles.  The  resolution  embraced  a 
large  number  of  particulars.4  The  tariff  bill  was  then  con 
sidered  by  a  vote  of  ninety-four  to  seventy-eight.5  Ver- 
planck  explained  the  provisions  of  the  measure,  after  a  few 
remarks  to  the  effect  that  the  wisdom  or  justice  of  tariff 
laws  since  the  war  was  not  to  be  a  subject  of  enquiry.  An 
honorable  and  gratifying  duty  was  to  be  entered  upon,  that 
of  a  reduction  of  the  taxes.  The  debt  had  been  extinguished 
under  the  operation  of  the  tariff  acts  he  had  referred  to. 
He  said:  "  Let  us  be  grateful  for  the  past."  He  concluded 
with  a  suggestion  that  thirteen  millions  of  revenue  might  be 
dispensed  with,  and  that  Congress  would  not  be  justifiable 
in  retaining  more  than  fifteen  millions  as  a  permanent  reve 
nue.6  In  the  course  of  the  discussion  which  followed  on 
subsequent  days  it  was  objected  that  the  measure  was  pre 
mature  and  pressed  too  urgently ; 7  that  it  was  a  perversion 
of  terms  to  call  it  a  gradual  reduction ;  that  the  recent  re 
duction  was  yet  an  untried  experiment ;  that  goods  would 
be  poured  in  from  abroad  to  the  injury  of  home  manufac 
tures  ;  that  two  and  a  half  millions  from  public  lands  was 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  822,  916.  •  Ibid.,  p.  948,  et  seq. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  835,  944,  952.  *  Ibid.,  p.  956. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  958.    The  main  provisions  of  this  bill  will  appear  in  the 
statement  of  the  debate. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  962,  et  seq.  7  Ibid.,  pp.  964,  973. 

20 


306          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

not  to  be  relied  upon ; l  that  the  committee  had  reduced  the 
revenue  by  other  provisions  below  the  wants  of  the  govern 
ment  and  were  obliged  to  supply  the  deficiency  by  duties  on 
coffee,  tea,  and  silk ;  that  of  the  Secretary's  alleged  surplus 
on  the  1st  of  January  of  $1,600,000,  $700,000  was  a  trust 
fund  to  be  paid  to  be  claimants  under  Danish  spoliations,  as 
it  was  money  received  from  Denmark  for  that  purpose,  and 
was  in  no  sense  government  funds ; 2  that  the  proposed  meas 
ure  was  in  itself  partial,  unjust,  and  inequitable  in  its  bear 
ing  on  the  diversified  interests  affected  by  it ; 3  that  in  the 
midst  of  the  uncertainties  thrown  around  the  subject  by  the 
differences  between  the  plans  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury  and  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  no  legislation 
was  called  for,  and  finally  that  it  was  the  play  of  children  to 
pass  a  law  at  one  session  and  before  it  had  gone  into  opera 
tion  or  an  experiment  could  be  made  of  its  effects  to  enact 
another.4  Besides  these  and  like  arguments  Dearborn 
treated  of  nullification,  which  he  pronounced  to  be  high 
treason ;  and  several  speakers  assumed  that  the  bill  would 
not  satisfy  South  Carolina.5  Choate  asserted  the  constitu 
tional  power  to  levy  duties  beyond  the  revenue  limit.  But 
lie  admitted  that  the  public  temper  was  against  such  an  as 
sertion  of  power.  A  favorite  argument  was  that  all  reve 
nue  should  come  from  imposts  and  none  from  the  public 
lands.6  Choate  said  that  the  Southern  States  had  not  at  any 
time  paid  a  fair,  constitutional  portion  of  the  taxes.  At 
length,  on  the  15th  of  January,  the  first  speech 
in  support  of  Yerplanck  was  heard.  It  was  by 
Gilmore,  of  Pennsylvania,  a  member  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee.7 

The  House  refused  by  a  very  large  majority  to  consider 
The  House  re-  Stewart's  resolution  providing  for  the  distribu- 
iurpiufrrom-  tion  of  tne  surPlus  among  the  States  according 
tion.  to  representation,  after  the  payment  of  the  pub 

lic  debt.     The  resolution  also  provided   that   half  of  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  969.          2  Ibid.,  p.  979.  3  Ibid.,  p.  982. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  997.  5  Ibid.,  pp.  1051,  1057,  and  other  places. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  1067.  7  Ibid.,  p.  1087. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.      307 

amount  should  go  to  works  of  internal  improvement,  and 
the  other  to  general  education.1 

The  President  furnished  copies  of  the  nullification  ordi 
nance  and  other  papers,  accompanied  by  a  message.  The 
opposition  desired  to  postpone  all  consideration,  but  the 
President's  friends,  being  in  a  majority,  secured  a  reference 
of  the  matter  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.2 

Two  resolutions  offered  by  ex-President  Adams  provided 
(1)  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  requested  to  report 
to  the  House  a  list  of  articles  upon  which  the 

Resolutions  by 

reduction  of  six  millions  might  be  made  for  the  ex-rresident 
most  part  upon  those   denominated  protected,*  * 
without  prejudice  to  the  reasonable  claims  of  existing  estab 
lishments  ;  and  (2)  that  the  President  be  requested  to  com 
municate  a  list  of  articles  which  are  indispensable  to  our 
safety  in  time  of  war  and  to  which  it  was  stated  in  his  mes 
sage  that  the  policy  of  protection  must  ultimately  be  lim 
ited.3     These  resolutions  were  debated  one  hour  every  day 
until  the  24th  of  January,  when  they  were  tabled. 

On  the  17th  of  January,  when  the  tariff  bill  was  resumed, 
Root,  of  New  York,  declared  that  South  Carolina  would  not 
insist  that  no  recognition  of  the  protective  princi-  January  17. 
pie  should  find  place  in  the  measure.    It  was  not  The  ^Tis  bm- 
secession  to  declare  a  pretended  act  of  Congress  no  law. 
Under  the  Constitution  he  thought  that  every  State  must 
give  its  assent  to  the  secession  of  a  State.     But  South  Caro 
lina  was  not  acting  a  traitorous  part ;  while  the 
principles  of  the  President's  message  had  always 
seemed  to  him  and  the  party  with  which  he  had  acted  as 
heterodox.     Nullification   could  not  apply  to  the  revenue 
laws,  because  those  laws  had  always  from  the  beginning  of 
the  government  been  constitutional.4     In  his  second  speech 
Verplanck  showed  that  there  were  always  between  three  and 
five  millions  of  appropriations  not  actually  chargeable  upon 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1054.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1082. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  1090-1273.   The  discussion  was  chiefly  between  Adams  and 
Hoffman. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  1103-1115,  1121. 


308  A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  income  received  during  the  next  year.  Reproached 
with  having  been  intimidated,  he  repudiated  for  himself  and 
his  committee  colleagues  with  indignation  any  such  thought, 
but  admitted  that  he  might  be  influenced  by  fears  for  the 
public  peace, — fears  not  of  any  present  danger,  but  for  the 
permanent  stability  of  the  Constitution.  "  Because  we  may 
have  a  giant's  strength,"  he  enquired,  "  does  it  become  us 
to  use  it  like  a  giant  ?"  *  In  a  friendly  manner  Jenifer,  of 
Maryland,  pointed  out  the  demerits  of  the  bill. 
He  favored  ad  valorem  duties.  He  would  strike 
out  the  duties  on  sugar  and  coffee  arid  reduce  those  on  iron.2 
Denny,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  that  the  price  of  iron  was 
half  what  it  was  in  1818. 3  He  argued  conversely  to  those 
who  had  urged  reduction  that  protection  was  necessary  to 
save  the  Union.4  As  the  debate  advanced  White,  of  Louisi 
ana,  contended  for  a  sugar  duty  increased  to  two  and  a  half 
cents.  So  far  nearly  all  the  speaking  had  been  done  by  the 
protectionists.  Polk  gave  as  a  reason  that  his  colleagues  on 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  had  refrained 
because  of  the  shortness  of  the  session  and  the 
desire  not  to  have  the  bill  defeated  by  delay.  He  examined 
the  collection  of  facts  made  and  transmitted  by  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  a  part  of  which  was  in  manuscript. 
He  sought  to  establish  from  this  report  by  the  testimony  of 
manufacturers  themselves  that  no  disastrous  fate  would  befall 
them  under  the  operations  of  the  bill.5  On  the 
other  side,  Reed,  of  Massachusetts,  stated  that 
only  one  of  many  volumes  of  this  evidence  had  been 
printed.  The  whale  fisheries  were  not  protected  by  the  bill, 
although  three  hundred  ships  of  the  best  quality  and  seven 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1130.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1139. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1147.  4  Ibid.,  p.  1155. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  1163.  The  Vermont  wool  factories  made  from  twelve  to  forty 
per  cent. ,  the  iron  foundries  from  twenty  to  forty.  Many  of  the  Massa 
chusetts  woollen  manufacturers  refused  to  state  their  profits.  Woollen 
and  cotton  factories  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  showed  profits  of 
more  than  fourteen  per  cent,  for  the  former  and  above  twelve  per  cent, 
for  the  latter.  Most  of  the  testimony  was  favorable  to  a  reduction  of 
duties  as  proposed. — Register  of  Debates,  p.  1163,  et  seq. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     309 

thousand  seamen  were  engaged  in  it.1     Appleton,  of  the 
same  State,  remarked  that  "  no  friend  of  South   Carolina 
would  wish  to  see  her  satisfied  with  the  bill. 
The  world  would  say  that  she  had  been  bragging 
high;  her  object  was  filthy  lucre."2     Some  of  the  debaters 
discussed  the  public  lands  and  internal  improvement  ques 
tions.     Wilde,  of  Georgia,  in  the  course  of  an  elegant  and 
impassioned  speech,  said  sarcastically  that  the 

J  Wilde. 

merits  of  the  controversy  were  best  summed  up 
by  the  pithy  saying  of  an  Eastern  manufacturer:  "  Of  what 
use  is  the  Union  without  the  tariff?"  He  claimed  that  the 
object  of  the  protectionists  was  to  make  tea  and  coffee  free 
in  order  to  place  prohibitory  duties  on  wool,  woollens,  and 
cottons.  The  measure  would  be  lost  by  carrying  out  the 
motion  to  exclude  the  two  former  articles.3  The  President, 
he  said,  desired  that  the  bill  should  pass,  but  the  past  con 
duct  of  the  Yice-President  was  not  free  from  ambiguity,  and 
he  warned  that  gentleman's  friends  that  the  best  evidence 
of  their  sincerity  would  be  their  votes.  Yinton,  on  the 
other  side,  insisted  that  slave  labor  was  the  most 
favored  of  any  in  the  country.4  Facing  the 
argument  that  the  South  became  poorer  and  the  North 
richer  by  the  operation  of  the  tariff,  he  found  the  explana 
tion  in  the  system  of  labor  and  investment  in  the  latter 
which  tended  to  accumulation,  while,  he  averred,  the  South 
accumulated  nothing.5  Congress  would  be  disgraced  and 
the  nation  dishonored  if  the  bill  were  to  pass  while  the 
South  Carolina  ordinance  and  address  were  unrecalled. 
The  doctrines  of  nullification  and  secession,  he  declared, 
would  be  met  at  the  point  of  the  sword  if  attempted  to 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1189.  3  Ibid.,  p.  1224. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1253.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1277. 

5  Vinton  ignored  the  fact  that  before  the  tariff  and  for  many  years  both 
in  the  colonial  era  and  under  the  Union  the  South,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it, 
outstripped  the  North  in  prosperity.  It  would  seern  that  then  the  slave 
owners  did  accumulate  something.  But  Vinton  admitted  the  apparent 
prosperity  of  the  South,  which  he  ascribed  to  primogeniture,  neglecting 
to  state  what  caused  the  prosperity  after  the  laws  of  primogeniture  had 
been  repealed.— Register  of  Debates,  p.  1282. 


310          A   HISTORY  OF   THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

be  carried  out.  He  spoke  in  the  same  warlike  vein  at 
considerable  length.1  One  sentence  of  this  speech  induced 
McDufiae,  who  had  remained  silent  during  the  debate  up 
to  this  point  to  exclaim,  "Robespierre!"  This  was  fol 
lowed  by  slight  hisses  in  various  parts  of  the 

McDuffie   cries  _ J          &         .  . 

"Robes-  hall,  and  the  Chair  amid  great  sensation  called 

Pierre!"  fQr  or(jer<  Carson,  of  North  Carolina,  made 

some  excited  remarks  and  was  called  to  order  by  Wat- 
mough,  of  Pennsylvania,  who  in  turn  was  admonished  by 
the  Chair.2 

Great  restlessness  had  marked  the  proceedings  for  several 
days.  The  enemies  of  the  bill  endeavored  repeatedly  to 
adjourn  the  House.  The  debate  proceeded.  Cambreleng 
thought  that  the  committee's  proposition  was  too  large  by 
-  Geographical  ^wo  millions.  He  deprecated  "  geographical 
prejudices."  prejudices"  and  the  substitution  of  passion  and 
imagination  for  reason  and  judgment.3  But  he  also  reproved 
the  vindictive  spirit  exhibited  by  some  gentlemen  towards 
.South  Carolina.  This  able  political  economist  said  "  that 
in  taking  an  enlarged  view  of  our  finances,  of  our  form  of 
government,  and  of  the  object  of  the  high  duties  we  have 
imposed,  we  must  be  convinced  that,  whether  wise  or  un 
wise,  right  or  wrong,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional,  the 
benefits  or  injuries  of  high  protecting  duties  cannot  be  com 
mon  to  all  the  States,  and  that  we  must  return  to  imposts 
for  revenue  or  abandon  all  hope  of  preserving  the  Union  in 
harmony  and  prosperity."  4  He  averred  that  it  was  easy  to 
avert  the  threatened  calamities  and  put  an  end  to  the  de 
bates  about  secession  and  convention  by  revising  the  revenue 
laws  with  amity  and  justice  and  by  adhering  to  the  spirit 
as  well  as  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  These  were 
New  York's  purposes. 

Burges  stated  upon  his  own  observation  that  the  report 
of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  was  an  error  in  fixing 
1799  as  the  date  of  the  beginning  of  cotton  manufactures 


1  Begister  of  Debates,  p.  1287.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1291. 

3  This  was  in  reply  to  Wilde.  4  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1346. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  18SS.     311 

in  New  England  :  there  were  factories  there  in  1791.  l  He 
assigned  as  a  cause  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  cotton  com 
petition  abroad.  He  presented  a  number  of  Burges< 


tables  which  showed  that  the  profit  of  cotton  nin&  of  cotton 

.  .  A  manufactures 

manufactures  in  the  United  btates  was  seven  in  New  Eng- 
per  cent,  in  1830,  a  year  of  light  importations;  ] 
they  also  showed  a  profit  of  seven  per  cent,  on  woollen 
manufactures  upon  a  capital  of  about  $58,000,000.  In  the 
former  about  135,000  people  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes  were 
employed;  in  the  latter  297,000.  Various  other  manufac 
tures  employed  not  less  than  232,000  annually,  with  $100,- 
000,000  invested  in  capital.  Wages  equal  to  $20,415,000 
were  earned  yearly.  He  estimated  that  2,872,000  —  "the 
vigor  and  strength  of  the  nation,"  as  he  put  it  —  were  de 
pendent  on  the  system,  and  that  their  total  capital  was 
$312,453,848.2  But  this  was  not  the  full  extent  of  Mr. 
Burges's  claim.  He  asserted  that  the  system  compre 
hended  every  class  of  labor  and  every  source  of  wealth.  He 
dated  the  protective  system  from  the  4th  of  July,  1789,  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  first  revenue  act  under  the  new 
government.3  Against  this  great  universality  of  interests 
he  placed  the  planters  of  rice,  cotton,  and  tobacco,  whose 
numbers  he  estimated  at  5000,  employing  335,727  slaves; 
and  only  a  fraction  of  these,  he  said,  demanded  entire 
abolition  of  the  great  national  system  of  encouragement 
and  protection.  This  system  had  enhanced  the  value  of 
slaves  from  twenty  to  fifty  per  cent.  The  estimated  value 
of  the  slaves  was  $100,718,100.  The  Treasury  reports  of 
1830  showed  that  the  product  of  the  three  Southern  staples 
exported  was  $37,248,072;  including  sales  in  the  domestic 
market,  $48,000,000.  The  capital  of  the  planters  was 
$139,336,705.  Against  this  he  set  up  $678,453,848,  the 
capital  of  free  white  labor.4  Congress,  he  contended,  dared 
not  enact  the  bill,  and  he  suggested  to  the  planter  that  if 
the  product  of  South  Carolina  slavery  was  reduced  in  price 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1361.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1374. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1384.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1388. 


312          A   BISTORT  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

the  master  should  diminish  the  task  of  the  slave,  spare  the 
lash,  reduce  the  quantity  of  cotton  raised,  and  employ  the 
slave  lahor  in  some  other  vocation.  "  Raise  monuments," 
was  his  supercilious  advice,  "  or  after-generations  may  not 
know  that  you  have  existed.  Let  the  little  tyrants  of 
these  days  .  .  .  build  pyramids  of  bricks  and  no  longer 
toil  to  scale  the  highest  heavens  on  bales  of  cotton." l  The 
proposed  abolition  of  the  system  of  protection  "was  a 
horror,  an  outrage  on  reason,  on  morals,  on  liberty,  on 
the  Constitution  itself;"  and  he  declared  that  if  it  should 
be  effected,  "  a  people  now  the  guardians  of  the  world's 
freedom  shall  then  be  made  the  miserable  panders  of 
profit  to  the  insatiable  avarice  of  a  base  and  vulgar  des 
potism."  2 

The  House  debated  a  resolution  offered  by  Appleton, 
directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  communicate  data 
Appieton's  ^°  ^na^  body  by  which,  taking  an  average  of  the 
resolution.  importations  for  the  last  six  years  as  a  probable 
criterion  of  the  ordinary  importations  for  some  years  to 
come,  the  revenue  from  the  customs  at  the  rates  of  duty 
payable  after  the  3d  of  March  next  may  be  established  at 
$18,000,000  annually;  also  how  far  the  duties  payable  after 
the  3d  of  March  next  fall  short  of  or  exceed  the  amount 
which  would  have  been  payable  if  the  bill  transmitted  by  the 
Secretary  on  the  27th  of  April  last  had  become  a  law.  Ap 
pleton  himself  could  make  the  amount  under  the  last  year's 
bill  only  fifteen  millions,  whereas  the  Secretary  had  esti 
mated  it  to  be  eighteen  millions.3  The  resolu 
tion  was  agreed  to.4  Howard,  of  Maryland,  who 
favored  the  bill  before  the  House,  also  advocated  the  passage 
of  the  Force  bill,  and  said  that  that  was  the  view  of  Southern 
members  generally,  in  which  he  differed  with  Wilde.  He 
contended  that  there  was  no  philosophy  in  taxing  such  rival 
interests  as  wool  and  the  woollen  manufacturers.  In  the 
course  of  an  elegant  speech,  partly  defensive  of  his  action 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1385.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1389. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1413.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1434. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     313 

as  an  anti-tariff  man  in  voting  for  the  bill  of  1832,  W. 
B.  Shepard,  of  North  Carolina,  admitted  as  true  Choate's 
statement  that  the  Southern  people  in  propor- 
tion  to  their  wealth  and  population  were  non- 
consumers.  He  did  not  agree  with  McDuffie  that  the 
legislation  of  the  country  was  hostile  to  the  South.1 

On  another  day  Pearce,  of  Rhode  Island,  bringing  up  the 
subject  of  the  profitableness  of  manufacturing  in  New  Eng 
land,  had  read  a  statement  showing  that  a  fac- 

.  .  °  Pearce  on  New 

tory  at  Scituate,  in  that  State,  had  lost  from  1806  England  mau- 
to  1821  $144,000,  and  if  there  was  a  profit  after-  ufactures- 
wards  of  five  per  cent.,  as  stated  by  the  other  side  on  the 
authority  of  one  of  the  partners,  the  total  loss  was  still 
$85, 000. 2  He  claimed  that  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island, 
the  largest  manufacturing  States  in  the  Union,  owning  more 
than  half  of  the  manufactories  in  the  country,  had  lost  more 
than  they  had  made. 

On  the  31st  of  January  ex-President  Adams  averred  that 
a  motion  by  Wilde  to  reconsider  the  reference  to  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  a  memorial  from  Mas- 

•  r>  n        t  «-n    •       January  31. 

sachusetts  asking  for  the  passage  of  a  bill  in  Mr.  Adams's 
accordance  with  certain  suggestions  was  an  in-  sensltlveness- 
suit  to  that  State.3  The  discussion  of  this  matter  was  very 
bitter,  and  the  motion  was  opposed  by  many  Southerners. 
It  was  withdrawn  on  February  2.4  Almost  every  speaker 
during  the  debates  on  the  tariff  reduction  bill,  who  advocated 
a  continuance  of  the  statics  quo,  insisted  that  the  Union  would 
be  virtually  destroyed  by  yielding  to  the  demands  of  South 
Carolina.  By  a  vote  of  sixty-nine  to  sixty-four  it  was*  re 
solved  to  strike  out  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee.  Another 
amendment  providing  for  the  gradual  reduction  of  duties 
on  wool,  blankets,  flannel,  carpets,  etc.,  and  on  cotton  manu- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1442. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1509.     He  dates  the  beginning  of  cotton  manufacturing  in 
Rhode  Island  in  1790.     Ibid.,  p.  1511. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  1522-1529,  1564.     He  so  far  modified  the  expression  the  next 
day  as  to  make  it  apply  to  the  adoption  of  such  a  motion  by  the  House. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1578. 


314          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

factures,  was  debated  for  several  days.1     The  discussion  on 
the  2d  of  February  in  the  end  was  rather  favorable  for  the 

high  tariff  men.  although  it  began  with  an  ex- 
February  2.  ,         ~          '  to 

posure  by  Cambreleng  of  the  uselessness  of  the 
tariff  in  the  item  of  protection  to  cotton  goods  after  forty 
years'  trial.2  On  the  4th  of  February  Ward,  of  New  York, 

a  decided  protectionist,  declared,  as  others  had 

February  4.        _  ,  ...  .  i      .. ,  i 

done  in  less  positive  terms,  that  it  was  an  abuse 
of  the  protective  principle  to  apply  it  to  raise  a  revenue 
which  was  not  needed,  and  that  the  evidence  was  written  on 
every  heart  that  the  country  was  on  the  brink  of  an  awful 
precipice.3  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  changing  his  position 
since  1830,  when  he  reprobated  in  his  diary  Webster's  doc 
trine  of  the  oneness  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
especially  his  denial  that  there  was  a  constitutional  compact, 
used  the  following  language :  "It  [the  Constitution]  had 
been  the  act  of  the  people  collected  in  separate  communities, 
but  forming  one  people,  whose  sanction  alone  gave  to  the 
Constitution  all  its  power."  He  said  that  the  interests  of 
one  portion  of  the  community  could  often  be  protected  only 
at  the  expense  of  some  other  portion  of  it.  But  the  repre 
sentation  of  slave  property  was  a  compensation  under  the  laws. 
He  would  not  agree  to  it  if  it  were  to  be  made  again.  He  also 
contended  that  other  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  as  the 
rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  and  the  guarantee  against  domestic 
violence,  were  especially  in  favor  of  the  slave  States.  The  ex- 
President  mooted  the  question  whether  South  Carolina  had  a 
republican  government.4  The  six  thousand  soldiers  of  the 
regular  army  were  employed  in  protecting  the  slave-owners 
and  the  Indian  border.  The  legitimate  consequences,  he 
said,  of  the  abandonment  of  the  protective  tariff  were  the 
dissolution  of  the  army  and  navy  and  the  return  to  govern 
ment  by  the  States.5  Drayton,  an  ex-Federalist  and  one  of 
the  Union  party  leaders  in  South  Carolina,  replied  with 
great  warmth  to  Mr.  Adams,  whom  he  charged  with  intro- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1575,  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  1579-1584. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1592.  4  Ibid.,  p.  1614.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1615. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     315 

ducing  topics  that  must  inevitably  excite  hostile  and  even 
furious  passions.  He  condemned  Adams's  positions  as  worse 
than  nullification  itself.  Adams  "  had  thrown  a  firebrand 
into  that  hall."  In  replying  to  what  the  latter  had  said  of 
protection  to  the  South  in  the  Constitution,  Drayton  re 
marked  :  "In  the  second  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
Constitution  a  representation  in  Congress  is  Draytonrepiieg 
granted  to  the  Southern  States  for  three-fifths  to  Adams. 
of  their  slaves,  and  as  an  equivalent  for  this  concession  they 
are  liable  to  the  payment  of  direct  taxes  in  a  ratio  appor 
tioned  to  that  representation.  ...  As  the  South  obtained 
a  larger  representation  than  their  free  population  entitled 
them  to,  in  return  they  were  bound  to  discharge  a  pro- 
portionably  greater  share  of  direct  taxation.  These  were 
the  conditions  of  the  compact.  They  were  fairly  and 
voluntarily  entered  into;  they  were  considered  to  be  ex 
pedient  when  they  were  ratified,  and  at  this  day  none  of  the 
contracting  parties  have  a  right  to  complain  of  them.  As 
to  the  other  species  of  protection,  it  was  more  nominal  than 
real;  the  Southern  States  place  no  reliance  upon  it." l  Pat- 
ton,  of  Virginia,  replied  to  the  constitutional  argument  ad 
vanced  by  Mr.  Adams,  and  urged  the  passage  of  the  bill  or 
some  other  action  to  tranquillize  the  country. 

The  committee  of  the  whole  rejected  Adams's  motion  to 
strike  out  the  enacting  clause  and  various  amendments  re 
ducing  the  amount  of  reported  reduction  on  cotton  goods, 
iron,  and  other  articles.  White's  amendment  was  carried 
by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Chair.  It  fixed  the  duty  on  cot 
tons  first  at  thirty,  then  at  thirty-five  per  cent.,  white,s 
leaving  it  permanent  after  1836  at  twenty  per  amendment. 
cent.2  The  whole  section  relating  to  silks  was  stricken  out. 
The  most  important  of  the  amendments  adopted  on  the  6th 
of  February  were  Evans's  setting  the  same  rate  of  paper 
duty,  and  Denny's  the  same  duty  on  cut  glass  as  in  1824, 
and  Ashley's  to  restore  on  lead  the  duty  of  1828.3  An 
amendment  by  Beardsley  giving  forty  per  cent,  on  wool 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1619.        2  Ibid.,  p.  1634.        3  Ibid.,  p.  1635. 


316          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

until  1834;  then  thirty-five  per  cent,  until  1835;  thirty  per 
cent,  until  1836  ;  and  twenty-five  per  cent,  permanent  duty, 

was  adopted.     Many  propositions  were  rejected. 

The  Yerplanck  bill  was  reported  to  the  House 
on  the  7th  of  February.1 

The  Force  bill  was  reported  by  Bell  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  House  on  the  succeeding  day.    The  report 

was  opposed  by  several  of  the  members  of  the 

Februarys. 

The  Force  BUI  committee,  some  oi  whom  had  agreed  that  it 
reported.  gbould  be  made.2  On  the  same  day  the  tariff 
bill  was  considered  seriatim  in  the  House.  After  consider 
able  debate  Root's  amendment  to  stop  the  reduction  on 
wool  at  thirty  per  cent,  was  carried.  The  provision  of  the 
bill  as  amended  stood :  on  wool  worth  eight  cents  a  pound 
and  on  woollen  twist  and  yarn  four  cents  specific  and  forty 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  until  March  2,  1834,  then  three  cents 
and  thirty-five  percent,  until  1835,  and  two  cents  and  thirty 
per  cent,  permanent.  The  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  of  the  committee  as  amended  by  Root  was 
ninety-seven  to  eighty-eight.3 

The  Collection  or  Force  bill  was  considered  for  several 

days  on  the  same  day  with  the  tariff  measure.     The  motion 

made  on  the  llth  of  February  to  table  the  latter 

February  11.  .   . 

was  negatived  by  a  decisive  vote,  but  even  then 
it  was  evident  that  such  divisions  existed  as  would  preclude 
its  passage.  Drayton  proposed  to  recommit  it  with  in 
structions  to  report  a  bill  continuing  the  act  of  1832  until 
March  2,  1834,  and  then  to  reduce  the  duties  one-third; 
various  tariff  Wickliffe,  to  continue  the  bill  of  1832  until 
propositions  March  2,  1834,  and  thereafter  to  reduce  the 

duties  in  such  manner  that  by  1840  they  should 
have  reached  twenty  per  cent.,  the  reduction  equally  dis 
tributed  through  the  intervening  years ;  Irwin,  by  amend 
ment  of  Drayton's  resolution,  to  reduce  ten  per  cent,  annu 
ally  after  1834  until  the  revenue  should  be  reduced  to  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1653.  2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1664. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE  COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     317 

wants  of  the  government;  Ward  well,  to  reduce  annually 
five  per  cent,  until  the  duties  reached  twenty  per  centum.1 
Drayton  modified  his  plan  so  as  to  embrace  some  of  Ward- 
well's.  The  various  propositions  just  stated  were  rejected  or 
withdrawn.  A  motion  to  table  the  bill  was  lost  Febma  18 
on  the  18th  of  February.  Changes  in  the  report  sundry 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  were  made  in 
ready-made  clothing,  leaving  the  article  as  in  1828,  and 
raw  cotton,  which  had  been  placed  at  two  cents  a  pound  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  which  was  stricken  out 
by  a  bare  majority.2  The  debate  on  the  latter  motion  was 
long  and  full  of  recrimination.  The  Southern  men  who 
wished  to  strike  out  the  duty  were  Alexander,  Archer, 
Barnwell,  Bell,  Clayton,  T.  H.  Hall,  Lamar,  Mardis,  Pat- 
ton,  Polk,  Roane,  Spaight,  Wayne,  and  Wilde,  who  voted 
with  John  Davis,  Dearborn,  Dickson,  Ellsworth,  Horace 
Everett,  Gilmore,  protectionists,  and  a  few  administration 
men  who  were  intermediate  between  the  two  schools.  A 
majority  of  the  Southerners  and  low-tariff  men  had  voted 
for  reconsideration,  along  with  some  of  the  most  stalwart 
of  the  protectionists.  Stewart  asked,  "  Why  this  fluttering  ?" 
and  said  he  was  glad  to  see  the  war  carried  south  of  the 
Potomac.3  But  both  schools  were  divided  on  this  question. 
The  Force  bill,  although  reported  by  an  apparent  ma 
jority,  was  favored,  it  was  intimated,  by  only  two  members 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Its  chairman,  Mr. 
Bell,  of  Tennessee,  did  not  wish  that  the  impres-  diciary  com- 
sion  should  prevail  that  the  House  sanctioned  Jf*Je  h°^ 
the  measure,  and  therefore  opposed  the  motion  bin  reported  by 
to  print  twenty-five  thousand  copies,  which, 
however,  prevailed.4  The  report  accompanying  the  bill 
contained  a  very  remarkable  passage :  "  When,  therefore,  a 
law  is  made  by  the  government  so  oppressive  and  destructive 
of  the  interests  of  the  people  of  one  of  the  States  as  to  de- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  1681. 

2  The  vote  was  eighty  to  eighty-one  on  the  proposition  to  concur  with 
the  committee.     Register  of  Debates,  p.  1755. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1751.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  1676,  1682-1685. 


318          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

termine  them  to  resist  it  at  every  hazard,  it  is  evidence  of 
the  justice  of  their  complaint,  which  should  not  be  disre 
garded  ;  and  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the  legislature,  in 
stead  of  devising  vigorous  measures  to  enforce  it,  to  modify 
the  obnoxious  law."  It  was  denied  that  this  language  was 
intended  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  nullification,  or  to  pro 
tect  those  who  advocated  it ;  but  Stewart  contended  that  a 
re-reading  of  the  document  had  only  confirmed  his  previous 
impression  that  it  contained  the  essence  of  nullification, 
the  essence  of  anti-tarimsm,  and  the  very  quintessence  of 
anti-Jacksonism."  1 

Pending  some  of  these  events  the  Presidential  count 
occurred. 

On  the  21st  of  February  the  tea  and  coffee  duties  in  the 
Verplanek  bill  were  stricken  out.  In  the  early  part  of  this 
February  21.  day  a  debate  had  occurred  as  to  which  measure, 
Tea  and  coffee.  ^  Force  j^  having  been  received  from  the 

Senate,  should  occupy  the  attention  of  the  House.  The 
low-tariff  men  had  wished  to  go  on  with  the  consideration 
of  the  tariff  bill,  the  others  to  take  up  the  Force  measure. 
The  former  motion  prevailed.  There  was,  however,  during 
the  debate  considerable  filibustering.2  In  speaking  upon  his 
resolution  calling  on  the  President  to  communicate  what 
ever  evidence  he  might  have  authorizing  the  belief  that  the 
government  and  people  of  South  Carolina  meditated  the 
seizure  of  the  forts  or  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  Davis,  of  that  State,  met  the  charge  with  a 
flat  denial.  Wayne  said  that  there  was  already  sufficient 
excitement,  without  an  addition  to  it  in  the  House,  and 
saw  nothing  in  the  recent  orders  which  differed  from  the 
attitude  in  which  South  Carolina  had  placed  herself  by  her 
ordinance  and  her  subsequent  laws  in  pursuance  of  that 
ordinance.  He  therefore  moved  to  table  the  motion,  and 
his  motion  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  nine 
to  fifty-seven.3 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1684.  a  Ibid.,  pp.  1758-1762. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1764. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1883.     319 

On  this  day  a  fiery  debate  occurred  on  the  disposition  to 
be  made  of  the  Enforcement  bill.  Motions  to  postpone  to 
various  days  and  to  refer  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
were  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  measure. 

J  ,  Fiery  debate  on 

The  Chair  decided  that  it  did  not  under  the  the  reference  of 
rules  have  to  go  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  the  Force  bilL 
The  bill  was  denounced  as  more  despotic  than  the  Alien 
and  Sedition  laws.1  Chairman  Bell  did  not  think  it  was 
fraught  with  the  danger  gentlemen  apprehended.  Some 
of  the  friends  of  the  South  Carolinians  averred  that  if  the 
House  would  pass  a  measure  of  reconciliation  there  would 
be  no  need  for  the  pending  or  any  other  measure  of  en 
forcement.  Wayne  defended  the  bill,  but  he  said  that  the 
time  had  arrived  when  men  should  act  together  for  a 
common  object, — to  have  the  tariff  reduced  and  the 
country  pacified.  It  was  immaterial  which  measure  had 
precedence.  His  remarks  were  partly  on  one  side  and 
partly  on  the  other.2  The  South  Carolinians  had  been 
silent  on  these  measures,  but  at  this  point  wan-enR. 
Warren  R.  Davis  arose  and  observed  that  the  Davis's  speech- 
House  would  do  himself  and  his  colleagues  the  justice  to 
own  that  they  were  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  delays 
that  had  occurred.  "  You  have  all  witnessed,"  he  con 
tinued,  "  that  we  submitted  in  silence  to  the  reading  and 
discussion  of  public  documents  containing  false,  malicious, 
and  defamatory  libels  on  the  State  and  people  of  South 
Carolina  .  .  .  that  shot  like  fiery  arrows  through  our 
veins.  .  .  .  We  remained  in  our  places,  we  kept  our  seats 
and  bore  the  torture."  He  asked  Bell,  as  chairman  of  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  if  it  was  the  intention  of  the  party 
with  which  he  acted  to  give  precedence  to  the  bill  for  col 
lecting  revenue.  Bell  replied  that  he  would  answer  the 
question  in  the  same  spirit  of  candor  in  which  it  was  asked  : 
It  was  desired  to  have  the  measure  passed  as  soon  as  prac 
ticable,  and  for  that  purpose  to  give  it  precedence.  "  Then," 
said  Davis,  "  we  understand  it  now.  The  President  is  im- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1766.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1768. 


320          A   HISTORY.  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

patient  to  wreak  his  vengeance  on  South  Carolina.  Be  it 
so.  Pass  your  measure,  sir ;  unchain  your  tiger ;  let  loose 
your  war-dogs  as  soon  as  you  please.  I  know  the  people 
you  desire  to  war  on.  They  await  you  with  unflinching, 
unshrinking,  unblenching  firmness.  I  know  full  well  the 
State  you  strike  at.  She  is  deeply  enshrined  in  as  warm 
affections,  brave  hearts,  and  high  minds  as  ever  formed  a 
living  rampart  for  public  liberty."  He  proceeded  in  the 
same  fiery  spirit  to  declare  that  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
would  receive  the  bill,  whether  passed  or  not,  "  with  scorn 
and  indignation  and  detestation.  They  will  never  submit 
to  it.  They  will  see  in  it  the  iron  crown  of  Charlemagne 
placed  upon  the  head  of  your  Executive ;  they  will  see  in  .it 
the  scene  upon  the  Lupercal,  vamped  up  and  newly  var 
nished  ;  they  will  see  in  its  hideous  features  of  pains  and 
penalties  a  declaration  of  war  in  all  but  its  form ;  they 
cannot,  for  they  are  the  best  informed  people  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth  or  that  ever  have  been  on  it  on  the  great  prin 
ciples  of  civil  and  political  liberty,  but  see  in  it  the  utter 
prostration  and  demolition  of  State  rights,  State  constitu 
tions,  and  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  too.  .  .  .  Peace,  is 
it  ?  Shame !  Shame !  You  pour  fire  and  brimstone  on 
our  heads,  and  bid  us,  in  the  language  of  a  departed  friend, 
4 Be  quiet;  it  is  Macassar  oil — myrrh,  frankincense!'  You 
collect  taxes  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  and  call  it  civil 
process."  He  denounced  protection,  but  exempted  South 
Carolina  from  the  charge  of  having  mercenary  motives. 
"  What  does  her  bright  and  glorious  history  tell  you  ?  To 
coin  her  heart  for  money;  to  drop  her  blood  for  drachms? 
.  .  .  Why  arm  the  President  with  powers  so  dangerous  to 
peace  and  freedom,  and  in  the  face  of  recorded  refusal  by 
your  predecessors  to  give  the  pacific  civilian,  the  mild, 
virtuous,  humane  Jefferson,  the  much  lesser  power  of  sus 
pending  the  habeas  corpus  act?  Is  this  thing  so  coveted 
by  and  gratifying  to  the  President?  Is  this  bloody  bill, 
this  Boston  Port  bill,  so  delightful  to  him  that  it  is  to  be 
preferred  to  that  which  is  said  to  be  pacificatory  ?  Why, 
Bir,  if  he  must  be  gratified,  must  be  amused,  buy  him  a  tee- 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1883.     321 

to-tum,  or  some  other  harmless  toy,  but  do  not  give  him 
the  purse  and  sword  of  the  nation,  the  army  and  navy, 
and  the  whole  military  power  of  the  country  as  peaceful 
playthings  to  be  used  at  his  discretion."  He  concluded 
his  speech  with  the  message  sent  from  Utica  to  Csesar: 
"  Bid  him  disband  his  legions,"  etc.  "  That,  sir,  is  her 
answer." l  After  further  discussion  McDuffie  prudently 
appealed  to  the  judgment  of  the  House  whether  good  re 
sults  could  possibly  proceed  from  the  debate.  On  the  same 
day  the  House  took  up  the  tariff  bill,  having  postponed 
the  other  until  the  day  following.2  Letcher,  of  Kentucky, 
a  friend  of  Mr.  Clay,  rose  immediately  and  moved  to  strike 
out  all  after  the  enacting  clause  and  insert  another  bill  in 
lieu  thereof.  This  was  Clay's  measure.  Objec-  Letcher  intro_ 
tion  having  been  made,  the  House  went  into  duce8 1  Clay's 
committee  of  the  whole  and  Letcher's  motion  House  as  a  sub- 
was  there  agreed  to  and  the  bill  was  reported  to  8 
the  House.3  The  protectionists  of  the  straightest  sect  op 
posed  these  proceedings,  except  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  who 
were  now  prepared  to  co-operate  with  the  low-tariff  men 
and  the  Southern  enemies  of  the  President.  One  ground 
of  opposition  to  the  bill  at  the  time  of  its  introduction  was 
that  the  third  section  which  provided  for  the  assessment  of 
values  of  goods  at  the  port  of  entry  conflicted  with  the  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution  that  "  all  duties  shall  be  uni 
form."  4  Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  expressed  surprise  at  the 
suddenness  of  the  movement,  which  he  spoke  of  as  "  this 
arrangement,"  and  declared  that  the  bill  would  place  the 
country  under  the  guardianship  of  the  Carolina  system.  He 
said  that  the  bill  favored  great  at  the  expense  of  large  capi 
tal  ;  that  it  abandoned  the  right  to  discriminate.5  At  the 
close  of  the  period  South  Carolina,  having  stood  by  the 
compromise  when  she  supposed  it  was  beneficial  to  the  tariff 
States,  would  say,  "You  have  no  right  to  change  this  law; 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1770.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1772.  3  Ibid. 

4  The  same  argument  was  used  in  the  Senate  discussion.  On  the  next 
day,  however,  Foster,  who  advanced  it,  admitted  he  was  mistaken.  Reg 
ister  of  Debates,  pp.  1773-1791.  6  Ibid.,  p.  1775. 

21 


322  A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

it  was  founded  on  compromise ;  you  have  the  "benefits  of 
your  side  of  the  "bargain,  and  now  I  demand  mine."  Horace 
Everett  had  not  expected  the  "blow  would  fall  on  the  manu 
facturers  from  the  quarter  from  which  it  fell.  There  would 
be  in  1842  a  deficiency  of  revenue.  How  would  it  he  sup 
plied  ?  Dickson  also  opposed  the  measure.  Letcher  replied 
to  these  speeches.  By  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  five  to 
seventy-one  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed.1  In  the 
discussion  upon  this  bill,  on  the  26th  of  February,  Clay  was 
hotly  assailed  by  the  more  zealous  protectionists  and  as 
warmly  defended  by  others.  He  was  accused  of  having  be 
trayed  the  protection  party  and  the  North  "  under  a  great 
political  arrangement."  The  charge  was  denounced  as 
calumnious,  and  his  act  was  eulogized  in  the  loftiest  terms.2 
The  speakers  exhibited  great  zeal  and  heat  on  both  sides. 
Stewart,  who  opposed  all  legislation  upon  the  tariff  at  that 
time,  claimed  that  the  South  demanded  the  sacrifice  of  the 
whole  Northern  people.  It  was  time,  he  said,  to  stop  and 
tell  these  gentlemen  plainly  that  we  will  go  no  farther,  and 
to  play  out  their  game  of  nullification  and  civil  war  if  they 
dared.  And  he  predicted,  with  slight  knowledge  of  the 
situation  there,  that  the  Union  men  in  South  Carolina  would 
be  able  to  put  down  the  nullifiers  with  little  or  no  aid  from 
the  federal  government.3  At  last  McDuffie  declared  that 
the  South  had  a  right  to  demand  more,  but  he  had  never 
theless  made  up  his  mind  to  vote  for  the  bill.  He  believed 
that  the  measure  would  give  quiet  to  the  country,  and  for 
that  reason  he  should  support  it.  Bates,  of  Massachusetts, 
in  giving  his  grounds  of  objection  to  the  bill,  said  he  had 
no  fear  that  the  South  would  not  abide  by  it.  The  previous 
question  was  carried  by  one  hundred  and  nine  to 
of  the  eighty-five.  The  vote  in  the  House  on  the  final 
compromise  passage  of  the  Compromise  tariff  measure  was, 
yeas,  one  hundred  and  nineteen ;  nays,  eighty- 
five,4  or  in  full  as  follows :  Messrs.  Adair,  Alexander,  Chil- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1779.        '  Ibid.,  p.  1790.        3  Ibid.,  p.  1802. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  1810,  vol.  ix.,  part  2 ;  H.  E.  Journal,  p.  428. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1888.     323 

ton  Allan,  Robert  Allen,  Anderson,  Angel,  Archer,  Arm 
strong,  John  S.  Barbour,  Barnwell,  Barringer,  James  Bates, 
Bell,  Bergen,  Bethune,  James  Blair,  John  Blair,  Boon, 
Bouck,  Bouldin,  Branch,  John  Brodhead,  Bullard,  Cambre- 
leng,  Carr,  Carson,  Chinn,  Claiborne,  Clay,  Clayton,  Coke, 
Connor,  Corwin,  Coulter,  Craig,  Creighton,  Daniel,  Daven 
port,  Warren  R.  Davis,  Doubleday,  Drayton,  Draper,  Dun 
can,  Felder,  Findlay,  Fitzgerald,  Foster,  Gaither,  Gilmore, 
Gordon,  Griffin,  Thomas  H.  Hall,  William  Hall,  Harper, 
Hawes,  Hawkins,  Hoffman,  Holland,  Horn,  Howard,  Hub- 
bard,  Irvin,  Isacks,  Jarvis,  Jenifer,  Richard  M.  Johnson, 
Cave  Johnson,  Joseph  Johnson,  Kavanagh,  Kerr,  Lamar, 
Lansing,  Lecompte,  Letcher,  Lewis,  Lyon,  Mardis,  Mason, 
Marshall,  Maxwell,  William  McCoy,  McDuffie,  Mclntire, 
McKay,  Mitchell,  Newnan,  Newton,  Nuckolls,  Patton,  Plum- 
mer,  Polk,  Rencher,  Roane,  Root,  Semmes,  Sewall,  William 
B.  Shepard,  Augustine  H.  Shepperd,  Smith,  Spaight, 
Spence,  Stanbery,  Standefer,  Francis  Thomas,  Philemon 
Thomas,  Wiley  Thompson,  John  Thomson,  Tompkins, 
Verplanck,  Ward,  Washington,  Wayne,  Weeks,  Elisha 
Whittlesey,  Campbell  P.  White,  Edward  D.  White,  Wick- 
liffe,  Williams,  Worthington.  The  nays  were  Adams, 
Heman  Allen,  Allison,  Appleton,  Arnold,  Ashley,  Babcock, 
Banks,  Barber,  Barstow,  Isaac  C.  Bates,  Beardsley,  Briggs, 
John  C.  Brodhead,  Bucher,  Burd,  Burgess,  Cahoon, 
Chandler,  Choate,  Collier,  Condict,  Condit,  Eleutheroa 
Cooke,  Bates  Cooke,  Cooper,  Crane,  Crawford,  John  Davis, 
Dayan,  Dearborn,  Denny,  Dewart,  Dickson,  Ellsworth, 
George  Evans,  Joshua  Evans,  Edward  Everett,  Horace 
Everett,  Ford,  Grennell,  Hiland  Hall,  Heister,  Hodges, 
Hogan,  Hughes,  Huntington,  Ihrie,  Ingersoll,  Kendall, 
Kennon,  Adam  King,  John  King,  Henry  King,  Leavitt, 
Mann,  Macarty,  Robert  McCoy,  McKennan,  Mercer,  Milli- 
gan,  Muhlenberg,  E"elson,  Pearce,  Pendleton,  Pierson, 
Pitcher,  Potts,  Randolph,  John  Reed,  Edward  C.  Reed, 
Russel,  Slade,  Southard,  Stephens,  Storrs,  Sutherland,  Tay 
lor,  Yinton,  Wardwell,  Watmough,  Wilkin,  Wheeler, 
Frederick  Whittlesey,  Young. 


324          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

On  the   27th  of  February  the  House    bill,  which  was 

identical  with  his  own,  was  reported  without  amendment 

February  27     ^°  ^e  Senate  on  motion  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  was 

March  i.         ordered  to  its  third  reading.     It  was  put  upon 

its  passage  on  Friday  the  1st  of  March,  and   debated   at 

length.     Bobbins  said  that  the  bill  considered  the  protective 

policy  as  a  great  State  criminal  condemned  to  die,  but  whose 

sentence  was  respited  a  few  days  to  give  him  time  to  arrange 

his  affairs.      He  supposed  that  the  bill  would 

The  bill  on  its  •  . 

final  passage  in  pass,  and  he  further  averred,  "If  it  does  pass, 
it  may  smother  the  fire  now  raging  in  one 
place,  but  I  fear  it  will  preserve  the  embers  that  one  day 
will  consume  the  fabric  of  the  Union."  l  Calhoun  observed 
that  to  some  details  of  the  measure  he  still  had  objection,  — 
among  them  the  slowness  of  the  reduction  in  the  first  part 
of  the  series  and  in  the  last  the  rapidity,  and  the  home 
valuation.  But  these  objections  were  overweighed  by  the 
fact  that  the  bill  provided  as  a  final  result  a  reduction  to  the 
just  and  economical  wants  of  the  government.  He  had 
but  little  faith  in  pledges,  about  which  a  good  deal  had  been 
said.  He  had  experience  enough  to  know  that  even  the 
Constitution  itself  would  be  violated  whenever  the  domi 
nant  party  saw  its  advantage  in  such  violation.  His  reli 
ance,  he  declared,  was  in  the  circumstances  under 
in  the  which  the  bill  was  about  to  pass.  He  had  no 


circumstances    fear  fa^  any  one  wou\&  try  to  re-establish  the 

under    which  . 

the  bill  was  protective  system  with  the  present  experience 
before  his  eyes.  But  while  he  believed  that  as 
far  as  this  subject  was  concerned  peace  and  harmony  would 
follow,  there  was  another  measure  connected  with  it  which 
would  prevent  the  return  of  quiet.  Calhoun  proceeded  to 
say  that  he  considered  the  Force  bill  as  "  a  virtual  repeal 
of  the  Constitution."  He  trusted  that  the  advocates  of  lib 
erty  everywhere,  as  well  in  the  North  as  the  South,  would 
rally  against  this  attempt  to  establish  by  law  doctrines  which 
must  subvert  the  principles  on  which  free  institutions  could 

1  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  791. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1883.     325 

be  maintained.1  Frelinghuysen,  expressing  his  belief  in  the 
policy  of  protection  as  an  abstract  question,  declared  that 
this  was  not  an  abstract  but  a  practical  question  of  deep  and 
most  eventful  moment.  Nullification  was  only  one  of  many 
forms  of  discontent.  The  bill  was  a  great  peace  offering. 
Dallas  was  averse  to  all  legislative  arrangements  which  com 
promised  or  abandoned  certain  great  principles.  He  drew 
a  sad  picture  of  the  condition  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  event 
the  bill  should  pass.  Dallas  appeared  illogical  in  saying 
that  the  measure  would  abandon  protection,  and  yet  the 
nullifiers  in  supporting  it  would  give  up  their  anti-protective 
principles.2  But  he  expressed  his  gratification  at  the  thought 
that  the  bill  would  pacify  the  country.  Ewing  declared  that 
if  it  yielded  the  principle  of  protection  no  consideration 
could  induce  him  to  assent  to  it.  But,  on  the  whole,  he  felt 
confident  that  the  industry  of  the  country  would  be  more 
safe  in  1842,  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  than  it  would 
in  1834  if  the  bill  should  not  become  a  law.3  Mangum 
and  Clayton  spoke  for  and  Webster  against  the  measure. 
Webster  said  that  he  stood  before  the  country 

*-,    Webster       op- 

on  the  proposition  that  everything  which  had  posea  the  bin 
been  found  valuable  in  the  protective  system  was  fc 
abandoned  by  the  bill.  Frelinghuysen  averred  that  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  had  not  dealt  fairly  with  his 
argument ;  the  question  was,  Will  we  have  the  Frelinghuy8en 
tariff,  or  have  the  Union  ?  "  Whenever,"  he  presents  the 

,  -   .     .  _    issue :  tariff  or 

continued,  "  it  comes  to  that  dreadful  issue,  I  union,  and  pre- 
take  the  Union."4     After  speeches  by  Silsbee,  fers the latter- 
Clayton,  Forsyth,  Sprague,  Holmes,  and  Wright,  Clay  con 
cluded  the  discussion.      Among  his  last  utterances  were 
these :    "  Save  the  country — save  the  Union — 
and  save  the  American  system." 5     The  vote  on  cla™8  Com- 
the  passage  of  the  bill  was :  Yeas— Bell,  Bibb, 
Black,  Calhoun,  Chambers,  Clay,  Clayton,  Ew 
ing,  Foot,  Forsyth,  Frelinghuysen,  Grundy,  Hill,  Holmes, 


1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  792.          *  Ibid.,  p.  795.          s  Ibid.,  p.  799. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  802.  5Ibid.,  p.  808. 


326          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

Johnston,  King,  Mangum,  Miller,  Moore,  Naudain,  Poin- 
dexter,  Rives,  Robinson,  Sprague,  Tomlinson,  Tyler,  Wag- 
gaman,  White,  and  Wright,  twenty-nine;  nays — Benton, 
Buckner,  Dallas,  Dickerson,  Dudley,  Hendricks,  Knight, 
Prentiss,  Bobbins,  Ruggles,  Seymour,  Silsbee,  Smith,  Tip- 
ton,  Webster,  and  Wilkins,  sixteen.1  The  great  Compro 
mise  Measure  of  1833  was  signed  by  the  President,  who  was 
thus  far  wiser  than  his  supporters  in  the  Congress.2 

While  these  events  were  taking  place  in  the  Congress  the 

State  rights  party  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  were  maturing 

a  plan  of  action  by  which  harmony  could  be 

Virginia  ar-  J  J 

ranges  for  preserved  on  a  basis  honorable  alike  to  all  the 
participants  in  the  controversy.  It  was  a  deli 
cate  task  to  which  they  set  themselves.  If  they  should 
overstep  ever  so  little  the  bounds  of  modesty  and  prudence, 
it  was  sure  that  they  would  fail,  and  the  failure  might  make 
it'  worse  for  South  Carolina.  But  they  must  not  approve 
her  course.  That  far  all  was  clear.  It  only  remained  to 
convey  disapprobation  in  such  a  friendly  and  dignified  man 
ner  as  to  induce  the  nullifiers  to  pause  and  consider  any 
measure  of  conciliation  which  might  be  adopted  by  the 
Federal  government.  Resolutions  directed  to  the  existing 
condition  of  affairs  and  reaffirming  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  Virginia  were  adopted,  and  Mr. 
Benjamin  Watkins  Leigh  was  empowered  to  act  as  a  com 
missioner  of  the  State  of  Virginia  to  the  State  of  South 
Carolina.  Mr.  Leigh  proceeded  to  Charleston  and  entered 
upon  a  correspondence  with  the  Governor.  Virginia,  in  the 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  Legislature,  had  asked  that  South 
Carolina,  in  the  interests  of  peace  and  union,  should  rescind 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  809  ;  also  Senate  Journal,  p.  224.    Besides  paci 
fying  the  country  on  this  eventful  occasion,  Clay  brought  about  the  res 
toration  of  friendship  between  Webster  and  Poindexter. 

2  March  2.     Von  Hoist,  in  his  "Life  of  Calhoun"  (Statesman's  Series, 
p.  106)  says  that  if  either  party  had  a  right  to  claim  the  victory,  it  was 
certainly  not  Jackson  and  the  majority  of  Congress,  but  Calhoun  and 
South  Carolina.     Lodge,  in  his  "Life  of  Webster"  (same  series),  takes  a 
broader  view :  "  South  Carolina  had  in  reality  prevailed,  although  Mr. 
Clay  had  saved  protection  in  a  modified  form."     Page  219. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1833.     327 

or  at  least  suspend  her  ordinance  of  nullification.  Her 
commissioner  presented  her  views,  and  in  his  latest  communi 
cation  even  assumed  that  the  recent  act  of  Congress — Mr. 
Clay's  compromise  measure — provided  such  a  modification 
of  the  tariff  as  left  very  little  doubt  of  the 

0        . ,      ~         , .  ,  ,  i       rru  February  13. 

course  South  Carolina  would  pursue.1     The  re 
sult  of  the  correspondence  was  a  call  from  President  Ham 
ilton  for  the  reassembling  of  the  convention.     The  call  was 
issued  on  the  13th  of  February,  and  the  body  Marchll   The 
convened  on  the  llth  of  March  following.     As  second  session 

,    , -i  .  .  ™         T       rm         of  the  conven- 

at  the  previous  session,  prayer  was  offered.    The  tion  m  south 
presidency  was  resigned  by  Hamilton  and  ac-  Carolma- 
cepted   by  Hayne.     Two   new  ordinances   were   adopted. 
One  was  a  harmless  expression  of  the  public  feeling  on  the 
repressive  legislation  of  the  Congress :  it  nullified  the  Force 
bill.2     The  other  declared,  "  Whereas,  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  by  an  act  recently 
passed  has  provided  for  such  a  reduction  and  modification 
of    the    duties    upon    foreign   imports   as   will    ultimately 
reduce  them  to  the  revenue  standard,  and  pro- 

.  ,          .  i     -IT   1  •       -I     i  The  Ordinance 

vides  that  no  more  revenue  shall  be  raised  than  of  Nullification 
may  be  necessary  to  defray  the  economical  rescinded- 
expenses  of  the  government,  it  is  therefore  ordained  and  de 
clared  that  the  ordinance  adopted  by  this  convention  on  the 
24th  of  November  last  entitled"  (here  the  title  is  set  forth) 
"  be  henceforth  deemed  and  held  to  have  no  effect."  But 
it  was  provided  that  the  militia  act  of  December  20,  1832, 
should  remain  in  force  until  repealed  or  modified  by  the 
Legislature.  The  convention  made  an  amicable  response  to 
the  Virginia  resolutions,  but  took  issue  with  their  framers 
on  the  propriety  and  justice  of  South  Carolina's  conduct 
and  on  the  deductions  that  State  had  made  from  the  Vir 
ginia  resolutions  of  1798  and  the  report  of  1799.3 


1  Dated  March  11,  and  addressed  to  the  convention. 

2  The  rescinding  ordinance  was  the  first  in  the  order  of  time. 

8  For  the  above,  see  ''Official  Proceedings,"  Columbia,  1833.     The  ex 
citement  in  South  Carolina  abated  after  the  terms  of  the  Compromise 


328          A   HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

After  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  bill  consideration 

of  the  Force  bill  was  resumed ;  but  the  House  was  in  such 

disorder  that  no  business  could  be  transacted. 

after  the  <pas£  McDuffie's  voice  was  heard  in  the  din  declaring 

sage  of  the  com-  that  if  gentlemen  would  hear  the  opponents  of 

promise  bill. 

the  measure  he  was  ready  to  meet  them,  but  if 
not  and  if  he  could  get  forty  men  to  stand  by  him  he  would 
continue  to  move  for  adjournment  and  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  until  the  end  of  the  session.1  Several  members  re 
sponded  that  they  would  support  him.  In  vain  the  Speaker 
called  for  order.  Bell  arose  to  speak,  but  he  could  not  be 
heard.  While  he  was  on  the  floor  McDuffie  moved  several 
times  to  adjourn.  The  Speaker  decided  that  these  motions 

were  out  of  order,  as  a  member  occupied  the 

floor.  This  uproar,  than  which  nothing  surpass 
ing  it  had  ever  taken  place  in  the  hall  of  Representatives, 
lasted  until  the  hour  of  the  evening  recess.2 

Adams's  report  on  the  President's  message,  which  had 
been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  was  pre 
sented  on  the  27th  of  February.3  This  elaborate  document 
assails  the  President's  declaration  that  the  independent 

farmers  were  the  basis  of  society ;  it  attacks  the 
Adams7report  institution  of  slavery  and  the  seven  slave  States 
on  the  Presi-  with  great  bitterness ;  it  inveighs  against  the 

dent's  message.    ,        ,     P  .  .  J? 

land,  internal  improvement,  and  tariff  policy  of 
the  Jackson  administration.  In  regard  to  the  President's 
tariff  principle  limiting  protection  to  articles  useful  in  war, 
his  predecessor  remarked  that  it  was  "  incorrect,  unjust,  and 
unconstitutional."  He  thought  that  gradual  reduction  of 
protection  to  manufactures  was  exceptionable,  the  more 
because  it  countenanced  the  action  of  South  Carolina.  The 
subscribers  to  the  report  express  surprise  at  the  tone  of  the 

were  made  known.     The  Convention  adjourned  on  the  18th  of  March, 
after  a  session  of  eight  days. 

1  The  modern  name  of  these  obstructive  tactics  is  "  filibustering  ;"  the 
number  of  such  motions  is  now  limited  by  rules  first  adopted  in  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  made  more  rigid  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress. 

2  Eegister  of  Debates,  p.  1812.        3  Ibid.,  p.  1817,  and  Appendix,  p.  4. 


NULLIFICATION  AND   THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1888.     329 

message  issued  ten  days  after  the  South  Carolina  ordinance, 
in  which  message  they  asserted  that  the  condition  of  things 
was  described  in  terms  inadequate  to  the  real  magnitude 
of  the  crisis.  "  Only  six  days  after  the  delivery  of  this  mes 
sage  the  proclamation  emanating  from  the  same  source  was 
published  to  the  world,  founded,  as  it  appears  on  its  face, 
upon  the  ordinance  alone,  which  had  thus  been  in  the  Presi 
dent's  possession  before  the  message  was  sent  to  Congress." 
The  writer  of  the  report  says  further  that  an  expectation  was 
entertained  at  the  Executive  mansion  that  on  the  receipt  of 
the  message  in  South  Carolina  the  nullification  convention 
would  abrogate  the  ordinance  immediately.  He  commends 
the  proclamation,  and  condemns  nullification  and  secession 
as  absurd  doctrines.  It  was  held  that  the  reduction  of  the 
revenue  was  not  incompatible  with  the  principle  of  protec 
tion.  But  it  was  contended  that  no  reduction  was  then 
needed.1 

On  the  resumption  of  the  Force  bill  discussion,  McDuffie 
said  that  the  measure  passed  the  day  before  would  be  re 
garded  in   South   Carolina  as  an  olive-branch,  McDuffie  and 
but  this  statement  was  contradicted  by  Blair,  Blalr- 
one  of  the  Union  leaders.2     Clayton,  of  Georgia,  wanted  no 
finger-board  attached  to  a  compromise  bill,  pointing  to  a 
threat   if  it  were   not   accepted.      Carson,  of   Mr.  Macon. 
North  Carolina,  quoted  from  a  letter  received  Coercion- 
from  Mr.  Macon,  in  which  the  aged  statesman  deprecated 
the  employment  of  force  in  the  pending  difficulties,  and 
gave  the  opinion  that  secession  was  the  rightful  remedy. 
He  also  cited  the  authority  of  John  Randolph.     The  dis 
cussion  ran  into  the  evening  session,  and  was  picturesque 
in   both   its   serious    and   comic   aspects.       One    Southern 
speaker  said,  mockingly,  that  on  the  morning  Mock  prognos 
tic  President's   proclamation  appeared  in  the  tlcs* 
Senate  no  prayers  had  been  uttered,  and  that  one  of  the 
thirteen  stars,  representing  the  thirteen  original  States,  in 
the  Virginia  Capitol  fell  on  the  day  that  that  grave  body 

1  Register  of  Debates,  Appendix,  p.  60.  a  Ibid.,  p.  1819. 


330          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL   STRUGGLE. 

was  discussing  federal  relations.  He  also  read  quaint  extracts 
from  Lord  Somers,  relating  to  Dutch  prognostics  in  1660- 
61. l  General  Jackson  was  declared  to  be  an  improper 
person  to  entrust  with  absolute  power.  A  free-born  South 
Carolinian  was  depicted  as  prone  on  the  ground,  and  the 
President  standing  ready  to  plunge  a  dagger  into  the  free 
man's  heart.  James  Blair,  on  the  other  side,  said  that  he 
should  regard  the  rejection  of  the  bill  as  a  negative  sanction 
of  nullification,  and  an  indirect  rebuke  of  the  Union  party 
of  South  Carolina.  "  We  ask  not  personal  protection,'* 
were  his  words ;  "we  would  suffer  annihilation  before  we 
would  invoke  aid  in  that  respect."  The  bill  might  increase 
the  anger  and  hostility  of  their  opponents.  He  denounced 
secession  as  well  as  nullification,  and  praised  Jackson's 
character,  services,  and  patriotism.2  The  debate  lasted 
through  both  sessions  on  the  28th  of  February.  Foster 
pointed  out  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  the  proposed  law 
as  regarded  those  merchants  of  Charleston  who  had  no  in 
tention  of  taking  advantage  of  the  South  Carolina  laws  to 
The  President's  eva(^e  payment  of  duties,  and  Daniel  made  an 
former  posi-  important  statement  respecting  the  President's 
former  position  on  nullification.  He  said  that 
at  the  time  of  Hayne's  speeches  in  the  Senate  on  this  doctrine 
both  the  President  and  Senator  Grundy  had  approved  the 
position  of  South  Carolina  as  enunciated  by  her  Senator. 
In  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Hayne,  the  former  had  ex 
pressed  himself  in  terms  strong  as  language  could  afford. 
Bell  enquired  if  he  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  Presi 
dent's  approval  of  those  principles  and  of  his  commendation 
of  Mr.  Hayne's  speech.  Before  the  Kentucky  member 
could  reply,  Carson  arose,  and  with  much  earnestness 
averred :  "  I  from  my  personal  knowledge  can  declare  that 
such  is  the  fact.  The  President  expressed  his  approbation 
of  that  speech  to  me  in  person."  Daniel  resumed  his  re 
marks.  What  he  knew  of  the  President's  opinions  on  this 
subject  was  from  documents  emanating  from  the  President's 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1832.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1860. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1883.     331 

own  pen,  from  the  various  statements  of  gentlemen  whose 
veracity  could  not  be  impeached,  and  from  corroborating 
circumstances.  Daniel  fixed  partial  responsibility  for  the 
condition  of  things  in  South  Carolina  upon  the  Union  party 
itself,  including  Blair,  with  whom  he  was  arguing  the 
question,  alleging  truthfully  that  they  had  done  much  to 
produce  the  excited  feeling  there  by  their  violent  denuncia 
tions  of  the  unconstitutionally  of  the  tariff. l 

This  was  the  final  debate  on  the  measure.  The  previous 
question  was  demanded  by  Craig,  a  Virginian,  on  which  the 
nullifiers  and  their  friends,  with  a  few  of  the  Northern  ene 
mies  of  the  President,  voted  no.  The  vote  was,  yeas,  one 
hundred  and  ten ;  nays,  forty-four.2  The  vote  on  ordering 
the  bill  to  a  third  reading  was  one  hundred  and  twenty-six 
to  thirty-four.  Its  friends  pressed  the  measure  to  a  vote 
that  night.  The  previous  question  was  carried  by  one  hun 
dred  and  eleven  to  forty.  The  House  adjourned  at  1.30 
A.M.  of  the  legislative  day  of  February  28,  which  was  the 
calendar  day  of  March  1.  On  the  succeeding  legislative 
day  the  select  committee  to  whom  had  been  referred  so 
much  of  the  President's  message  as  related  to  doubtful 
powers  made  a  verbal  report  which  stated  that  there  was 
not  a  single  point  on  which  the  committee  could  agree,  and 
amidst  some  "jocular  conversation"  the  committee  was 
discharged.3 

The  Force  or  Revenue  Collection  bill  passed  by  the  fol 
lowing  vote:  Yeas — Adams,  Chil ton  Allen,  Heman  Allen, 
Allison,  Anderson,  Appleton,  Armstrong,  Ash-  Passage  of  the 
ley,  Banks,  Noyes  Barber,  Barringer,  Barstow,  Force  bm. 
Isaac  C.  Bates,  James  Bates,  Beardsley,  Bell,  Bergen,  Be- 
thune,  James  Blair,  John  Blair,  Boon,  Bouck,  Briggs,  John 
Brodhead,  John  C.  Brodhead,  Bucher,  Bullard,  Burd,  Bur- 
ges,  Cahoon,  Cambreleng,  Carr,  Chandler,  Choate,  Collier, 
Eleutheros  Cooke,  Bates  Cooke,  Corwin,  Craig,  Crane, 
Crawford,  Creighton,  John  Davis,  Dearborn,  Denny,  De- 

1  Register  of  Debates,  pp.  1876-1896.  2  Ibid.,  p.  1896. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1902. 


332          A  HISTORY  OF  THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE. 

wart,  Dickson,  Doubleday,  Drayton,  Draper,  Ellsworth, 
George  Evans,  Joshua  Evans,  Edward  Everett,  Horace 
Everett,  Findlay,  Fitzgerald,  Ford,  Gilmore,  Grennell, 
William  Hall,  Hiland  Hall,  Harper,  Hawkins,  Heister, 
Hodges,  Hoffman,  Hogan,  Holland,  Horn,  Howar"d,  Hub- 
bard,  Huntington,  Ihrie,  Ingersoll,  Irvin,  Isacks,  Jarvis, 
Jenifer,  Richard  M.  Johnson,  Joseph  Johnson,  Kavanagh, 
Kendall,  Adam  King,  John  King,  Henry  King,  Kerr,  Lan 
sing,  Leavitt,  Lecompte,  Letcher,  Lyon,  Mann,  Marshall, 
Maxwell,  McCarty,  William  McCoy,  Mclntire,  McKay, 
McKennan,  Mercer,  Milligan,  Mitchell,  Muhlenberg,  Nel 
son,  Newton,  Pearce,  Pendleton,  Pierson,  Pitcher,  Polk, 
Potts,  Eandolph,  John  Eeed,  Edward  C.  Reed,  Russell, 
Semmes,  Sewall,  William  B.  Shepard,  Augustin  H.  Shep- 
perd,  Slade,  Smith,  Soule,  Speight,  Standefer,  Stephens, 
Stewart,  Sutherland,  Taylor,  Francis  Thomas,  Philemon 
Thomas,  John  Thomson,  Tompkins,  Tracy,  Yerplanck, 
Yinton,  Ward,  Wardwell,  Washington,  Watmough,  Wayne, 
Wilkin,  Elisha  Whittlesey,  Frederick  Whittlesey,  Campbell 
P.  White,  Edward  D.  White,  Williams,  Worthington,  and 
Young,  one  hundred  and  forty-nine ;  nays — Alexander, 
Robert  Allen,  Archer,  Arnold,  Babcock,  John  S.  Barbour, 
Barnwell,  Bouldin,  Carson,  Chinn,  Claiborne,  Clay,  Clayton, 
Coke,  Connor,  Cooper,  Coulter,  Daniel,  Davenport,  Warren 
R.  Davis,  Felder,  Foster,  Gaither,  Gordon,  Griffin,  Thomas 
H.  Hall,  Hawes,  Hughes,  Cave  Johnson,  Lamar,  Lewis, 
Mardis,  Mason,  McDuffie,  Newnan,  Nuckolls,  Patton,  Plum- 
mer,  Rencher,  Roane,  Root,  Stanbery,  Wiley  Thompson, 
Weeks,  Wheeler,  Wickliffe,  and  Wilde,  forty-seven.1 

McDuffie  offered  an  amendment  to  the  title  of  the  bill  in 
the  following  words  :  "  An  act  to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States  of  this  Union,  to  establish  a  consolidated  govern 
ment  without  limitation  of  powers,  and  to  make  the  civil 
subordinate  to  the  military  power."  It  was  cut  off  by  the 
previous  question  and  the  title  of  the  measure  retained  as 
it  came  from  the  Senate.  The  bill  was  returned  to  the 

1  Register  of  Debates,  p.  1903  ;  Journal,  p.  453. 


NULLIFICATION  AND    THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1833.     333 

other  house  without  amendment,  and  was  afterwards  ap 
proved  by  the  President.1    Although  galling  to  the  pride 
of  the  South  Carolinians,  it  was  a  dead  letter 

Effect    of    the 

bil1-  when  it  became  'a  law;  for  the  Compromise  had 

secured  peace,  and  there  was  no  more  for  that  generation 
any  place  for  force  among  the  safeguards  of  the  Union.2 


1  March  2.     The  Compromise  bill  and  the  Force  bill  were  signed  on 
the  same  day. 

2  In  another  volume  I  shall  treat  of  the  United  States  Bank  and  the 
Public  Lands.     These  questions  are  deferred,  along  with  that  of  Internal 
Improvements,  because  a  great  part  of  the  events  included  in  a  discussion 
of  them  happened  later  than  the  date  I  have  fixed  for  the  present  vol 
ume's  utmost  limit. 


INDEX. 


A. 

ADAMS,  John,  son  of  John  Quincy,  and 
private  secretary  of  President,  is  as 
saulted,  30 

ADAMS,  John  Quincy,  Presidential  candi 
date  1824-25,  18 ;  again,  1828 ;  Northern 
candidate,  20,  21 ;  gets  two  votes  in  Con 
gressional  nominating  caucus,  22 ;  Adams 
and  Jackson,  24 ;  elected  in  1825  by  House 
of  Representatives,  24  ;  Adams  and  Clay, 
25  ;  decides  day  after  election  to  appoint 
Clay  Secretary  of  State  and  Crawford 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  26;  his  in 
augural  address,  26 ;  starts  with  majority 
in  Congress,  26 ;  unpopular  personally, 
27 ;  coalition  against  him,  27 ;  cry  of 
"bargain"  in  campaign  of  1828,  30; 
Adams  and  anti-Masonic  movement,  30  ; 
Adams  less  sanguine  than  Clay,  31 ;  sim 
ple  and  austere,  32;  last  of  post-Revolu 
tionary  Presidents,  32 ;  administration  of, 
favors  protection,  146;  reports  tariff  bill 
of  1832,  215;  debates  it,  224;  his  resolu 
tions  requesting  list  of  protected  articles 
for  reduction  tabled,  307;  speaks  on 
Verplanck's  tariff  bill,  315;  reports  on 
President's  message,  328 

ADDITIONAL  BILLS,  grouped,  on  subject  of 
revenue,  60 ;  supplementary  act  to  act  of 
1816,  71 

ALEXANDER,  of  Virginia,  on  tariff  of  1828, 
139 

AMERICAN  INDUSTRIAL  SYSTEM  called  for, 
17 

AMES,  Fisher,  speaks  on  tariff,  39,  42,  48,  52 

ANDERSON,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1828,  129 

ANTI-MASONS  support  Adams  in  1828,  31 ; 
convention  of,  188,  195 

APPLETON,  of  Massachusetts,  speaks,  213, 
309,  312;  his  resolutions  concerning  im 
portations  adopted,  312 

ARCHER,  of  Virginia,  on  Baldwin  tariff,  76, 
77;  on  Woollens  bill,  124;  on  tariff  of 
1832,  224 

ARMAMENT  in  nullification  times,  238,  239 

Aurora  champions  protection,  17 

AYES  AND  NOES.  (See  for  Tariff  and  Force 
bills  those  heads.) 


BALDWIN,  of  Pennsylvania,  chairman  of 
Committee  on  Manufactures,  reports 
tariff  bill  of  1820  and  explains  its  pro 
visions,  73 

BALDWIN  speaks  on  First  tariff,  45 

BALDWIN,  tariff  of,  reported,  73 ;  debated, 
73-81 ;  passed  House  of  Representatives, 
81 ;  defeated  in  Senate,  82 

BANK,  United  States,  note,  333 

BARBOUR,  Philip  Pendleton,  on  Baldwin 
tariff,  76,  77,  78 ;  on  tariff  of  1824,  91,  98, 
101,  102,  103;  on  tariff  of  1828,  139;  on 
tariff  of  1830,  201 

BARGAIN,  charge  against  Adams  and  Clay 
in  campaign  of  1828,  30  (see  Adams  and 
Clay) 

BARNARD  on  tariff  of  1828, 131 

BARNEY  on  tariff  of  1828, 128, 135 

BARNWELL  on  tariff  of  1830,  205 

BARTLETT  on  tariff  of  1824, 101 

BARTON,  of  Missouri,  on  Foot  resolution 
(1830),  156,  184 

BATES,  of  Massachusetts,  on  tariff  of  1828, 
132,  136,  138 ;  on  Clay's  tariff,  322 

BELL,  John,  of  Tennessee,  on  tariff  of  1832, 
220 ;  on  Compromise  tariff,  276 ;  on  Force 
bill,  319,  328 

BENTON,  Thomas  Hart,  on  tariff  of  1828, 
141,  143,  144;  on  Foot  resolution  (1830), 
156,  157,  163,  182,  183,  186, 187  ;  unavailing 
efforts  of,  to  reduce  salt  duty,  210;  his 
reform  zeal,  210 ;  on  compromise  tariff, 
290,  293 

BIBB  on  Force  bill,  258,  264,  265 

BLACK  on  Compromise  tariff,  289 

BLAIR,  James,  of  South  Carolina,  contra 
dicts  McDuffie  on  Force  bill,  329,  330 

BLAND,  of  Virginia,  on  tariff,  39,  42,  44,  52 

BOUDINOT,  of  New  Jersey,  on  tariff  of  First 
Congress,  35,  38,  39,  40,  41,  44,  45,  46, 
52 

BOULDIN,  resolutions  of,  212 ;  speaks,  217 

BRECK,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  of  1824, 
100 

BRENT,  of  Louisiana,  on  tariff  of  1824,  92, 
93,98 

BROWN,  Bedford,  on  Force  bill,  258, 260, 264 
335 


336 


INDEX. 


BROWN  on  tarlfi  of  1824,  111 

BRYAN,  of  North  Carolina,  on  Woollens 

bill,  124  ;  on  tariff  of  1828, 133 
BUCHANAN,  James,  on  tariff  of  1823,  87 ;  on 

Woollens  bill,  124,  125 ;  on  tariff  of  1828, 

133, 135 
BUCKNER  on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to 

introduce  Compromise  tariff  bill,  275 
BITLLARD,  of  Louisiana,  on  tariff  of  1832, 223 
BURGES,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  tariff  of  1828, 

137, 138 ;  on  tariff  of  1830,  205  ;  on  tariff  of 

1832,  223 ;  on  Verplanck  tariff,  310-312 
BURKE  on  First  tariff,  43,  50,  51 
BURTON  on  tariff  of  1824,  98 
BUTLER  appointed  on  special  committee 

of   Senate,  First  Congress,  to  consider 

tariff  amendment,  53 

C. 

CADWALADER  appointed  on  first  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  55 

CALHOUN,  John  Caldwell,  on  tariff  of  1816, 
67,  69,  70,  71 ;  Presidential  candidate  at 
first  in  1824,  18 ;  withdraws  in  favor  of 
General  Jackson,  21 ;  nominated  for  Vice- 
Presidency  by  Jackson  meeting,  23 ;  his 
friends  join  coalition  against  Adams,  27  ; 
vindicated  by  Congress  in  matter  of  the 
Mix  contracts,  27 ;  candidate  of  Jackson 
party  for  re-election  to  Vice-Presidency  in 
1828, 29 ;  elected,  31 ;  gives  casting  vote  on 
Woollens  bill,  126  ;  writes  his  exposition, 
*  193 ;  chosen  Senator,  242 ;  defends  South 
Carolina  and  attacks  President,  246 ;  of 
fers  three  resolutions  on  nature  of  the 
general  government,  250 ;  debates  them, 
250-252;  debates  Force  bill  and  various 
resolutions,  254,  256,  257,  261,  263,  264,  265, 
278,  279-281,  286,  288,  289,  290,  291 ;  speaks 
on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to  introduce 
tariff  compromise,  274;  motives  of,  in 
tariff  compromise,  292 ;  great  speech  on 
his  own  resolutions,  296-303 ;  his  resolu 
tions,  with  others,  laid  on  the  table,  304  ; 
votes  for  Clay's  Compromise  tariff  bill, 
325 

CAMBRELENG,  Churchill  C.,  debates  tariff 
of  1823,  86 ;  Woollens  bill,  123 ;  tariff  bill 
of  1830,  201,  205;  that  of  1832,  224;  Ver 
planck  tariff,  310,  314 

CANDIDATES,  Presidential,  in  1824,  18  (see 
Adams,  Calhoun,  Clay,  Crawford,  and 
Jackson);  in  1828,  29,  30  (see  Adams  and 
Jackson) 

CANDLES  considered  in  debate  of  tariff  of 
1789,  40 

CARSON,  of  North  Carolina,  on  tariff  of 
1832,  223,  224 ;  on  Verplanck  tariff,  310 ; 
on  Force  bill,  329,  330 


CAUCUS,  the  Congressional,  for  Presidential 
nominations,  opposition  to,  21 ;  last  one 
held  nominates  Crawford,  22 
CHALMERS  on  leave  for  Clay's  Compromise, 

275 

CHILTON,  of  Kentucky,  on  tariff  of  1828, 135 
CHOATE,  of  Massachusetts,  debates  tariff  of 

1832,  221,  222 ;  Verplanck's  bill,  306 
CLAIBORNE  on  tariff  of  1828,  129 
CLARK,  of  New  York,  on  tariff  of  1824, 110 
CLAY,  Henry,  a  Presidential  candidate 
from  the  West  in  1824,  18-20 ;  charge  of 
bargain  against,  30 ;  appointed  Secretary 
of  State  1825,  26 ;  talked  of  for  Vice-Presi 
dency,  29 ;  debates  tariff  of  1816,  63,  64,  65, 
66,  67 ;  that  of  1820,  75 ;  that  of  1824,  91,  98, 
99, 104-107  ;  gives  notice  of  his  tariff  bill, 
267 ;  presents  his  Compromise  tariff,  270j 
debates  it,  270-273 ;  his  tariff  bill  reported, 
288 ;  debates  it,  288,  289,  292,  293,  294,  295, 
296, 355  ;  motives  of,  in  tariff  Compromise, 
292,  293,  294,  295;  his  Compromise  bill 
adopted  by  House  of  Representatives  as 
substitute  for  its  own  tariff  bill,  321; 
passed  House,  322;  passed  Senate  after 
debate,  324,  325 ;  becomes  a  law,  326 
CLAY,  of  Alabama,  on  tariff  of  1832,  221 
CLAYTON,  of  Delaware,  on  Foot  resolution, 
but  treats  of  power  of  removal,  184 ;  on 
Force  bill,  261,  288 ;  on  Clay  tariff,  290, 293, 
325 ;  offers  resolutions  on  nature  of  the 
general  government  and  debates  them, 
253 

CLAYTON,  of  Georgia,  on  Force  bill,  329 
CLYMER  on  First  tariff  (1789),  44 
COALITION  between  Clay  and  Calhoun,  292 
COBB,  of  Georgia,  on  tariff  of  1824,  93 
COFFEE,  bill  to  reduce  duties  on,  failed  in 
House,  but  passed  Senate,  127  (see  Wines 
and  Teas);  passed  House,  202;  passed 
Senate,  211 
COLCOCK,  Judge,  chairman  of  committee 

of  nullification  convention,  231 
COLLECTION  of  revenue  duties,  bill  for  (see 

Force  Bill) 

COMPACT,  Constitutional  (see  Webster,  Cal 
houn,  and  Government) 
COMPROMISE,  Clay's  tariff,  270;  debate  re 
sumed,  276 ;  motion  to  table  negatived, 
276;  referred  to  select  committee,  276; 
reported,  288;  adopted  by  House  of 
Representatives  as  substitute  for  Ver 
planck  bill,  321 ;  and  passed  House,  322; 
passed  Senate,  324,  325;  becomes  a  law, 
326 
CONNER,  of  North  Carolina,  on  tariff  of 

1824,  92 

CONVENTION,  general,  broached,  335  (see 
South  Carolina  and  Nullification) ;  Union 


INDEX. 


337 


protests  against  Nullification  Ordinance, 
244  ;  Southern,  proposed  by  Georgia,  243  ; 
Philadelphia  Commercial,  petition  of,  83  ; 
nullification,    assembled,    231 ;     adopts 
Ordinance  of  Nullification,  233;   re-as 
sembles  and  rescinds,  327 
COOK,  of  Illinois,  on  tariff  of  1824,  93 
COOPER,  Dr.,  of  South  Carolina,  189 
COTTON,  House  accepts  Senate  amendment 
providing  a  three-cent  duty  on,  54  ;  man 
ufactures  of,  66,  67,  70,  85 ;  bagging,  92, 
98,  112, 117,  134 ;  minumum,  103,  118 
CRAWFORD,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  of 

1830,  204  ;  on  second  McDuffie  tariff,  217 
CRAWFORD,  William   Harris,  of  Georgia, 
Presidential  candidate  (1824)  from  the 
South,  18 ;  nominated  by  minority  Con 
gressional  caucus,  22 ;  his  failing  health, 
23 ;  loss  of  position  in  race,  23 ;  cited  as 
Secretary  of  Treasury,  87;  suggests  gen 
eral  constitutional  convention,  235 
CUTHBERT  on  tariff  of  1816,  69,  70 

D. 

DALLAS  on  Force  bill,  264,  266,  267,  and 
partly  on  Poindexter  resolution;  his 
motion  to  table  Compromise  tariff  lost, 
276,  288 ;  discusses  it,  325 

DALTON  appointed  on  Senate  committee, 
First  Congress,  to  consider  tariff  amend 
ment,  53 

DANIEL  on  Force  bill  and  change  of  Presi 
dent's  position,  330 

DAVIS,  of  Massachusetts,  on  Woollens  bill, 
124 ;  on  tariff  bill  of  1828,  130,  131 ;  on 
tariff  bill  of  1830,  203 ;  on  tariff  of  1832, 
219,  224 ;  on  substitution  of  Clay's  tariff 
for  Yerplanck's,  321 

DAVIS,  of  South  Carolina,  denies  that  that 
State  meditated  seizure  of  forts,  318 ;  his 
motion  tabled,  318 ;  on  Force  bill,  319-321 

DEARBORN,  resolutions  of,  212;  debates 
tariff  of  1832,  224;  that  of  1833  (Ver- 
planck's),  306 

DEBATE  OF  1830,  chap,  iii.,  146;  debate 
began,  156  (see  Tariff,  Revenue,  Force 
bill,  Compromise  bill,  etc.,  for  other 
debates) 

DEMOCRATS,  Republicans  began  to  be  so 
called,  17 ;  name  used  at  Philadelphia, 
November  5, 1823,  24 

DENNY,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  Verplanck 
tariff,  308 

DEPRESSION  of  the  country  in  1820,  evi 
dence  of,  82 

DICKERSON,  of  New  Jersey,  on  tariff  of 
1824,  118 ;  on  that  of  1828,  142,  143,  144  ; 
on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to  introduce 
tariff  compromise,  274 


DICKSON  on  Clay  tariff,  322 

DIRECT  TAX  considered,  60;  bill  providing 
for,  passed,  61 

DISCRIMINATION  in  favor  of  treaty  nations 
(see  Madison),  measure  providing  for,  in 
conference,  54;  House  yields  in  regard 
to,  55 

DRAYTON,  of  South  Carolina,  debates  Wool 
lens  bill,  124 ;  tariff  of  1828, 137;  speaks  oh 
crisis  at  Charleston,  189 ;  on  tariff  of  1830, 
205 ;  presents  anti-nullification  memorial, 
214 ;  on  Verplanck  bill,  314 

DURFEE,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  tariff  of  1823, 
87 

DUTIES,  specific,  favored,  38 ;  general  com 
plaints  as  to  height  of  general  duties  of 
tariff  of  1789, 45;  Tucker's  proposition  for 
reduction  of,  49  (see  Revenue  and  various' 
Tariff  items) 

E. 

EIGHTEEN  AND  THIRTY,  debate  of,  chap, 
iii.,  146 ;  debate  begins,  156 ;  tariff  bill  of, 
201-209  (see  McDuffie) 

ELLIOTT,  of  Georgia,  on  tariff  of  1824, 118 

ELLSWORTH,  member  of  Senate  committee, 
First  Congress,  to  consider  tariff  amend 
ment,  53 

Enquirer,  Richmond,  conflict  of,  with  Na 
tional  Intelligencer,  18 

ENUMERATED  ARTICLES,  debate  on,  on 
Fitzsimons's  proposition,  35 

EQUIVALENCE,  Benton's  sixteen  resolutions 
concerning,  211 

EUSTIS,  of  Massachusetts,  on  tariff  ol  1823, 
87 

EVANS,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1832,  220 

EVERETT,  Edward,  on  tariff  of  1830,.  205 ; 
that  of  1832,  224 

EVERETT,  Horace,  on  Clay  tariff,  322 

EWING,  on  Force  bill,  288 ;  on  Compromise 
tariff,  325 

F. 

FITZSIMONS,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  bill 
of  First  Congress  (1789),  35 ;  advocates  a 
permanent  system,  36;  committee  of 
whole  add  his  list  of  tariff  articles  to 
Madison's,  38,  40,  41,  43,  44,  45,  46,  49,  50, 
52 ;  appointed  on  first  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  55 

FOOT,  of  Connecticut,  on  tariff  of  1824',  9f, 
101 ;  on  resolution  of,  156 ;  on  leave  for 
Clay's  tariff  bill,  275 

FORCE,  or  collection,  bill,  reported  in  Sen 
ate,  248 ;  Clay's  dilatory  motion  on,  agreedf 
to,  250 ;  discussed,  254  ;  provisions  of,  254- 
256 ;  motion  to  postpone  lost,  256 ;  Wil- 
kins's  amendments  to,  adopted,  269 ;  de 
bate  on,  resumed,  275;  passed  Senate, 


22 


338 


INDEX. 


288;  reported  in  House,  316;  debated, 
.316,  328,  329-331 ;  passes  House,  331 ;  be 
comes  a  law,  333 

FORSYTH  on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to  in 
troduce  tariff  bill,  273;  on  Force  bill, 
286;  on  Compromise  tariff,  288,  289,  325; 
on  nature  of  the  general  government, 
304 

FORWARD,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  of 
1828,  132 

FOSTER  on  Force  bill,  330 

FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  characterized,  62 

FREE  TRADE,  theory  of,  and  difficulty  of 
adaptation,  33;  freedom  of  commerce 
asserted  by  Madison  as  a  general  prin 
ciple  in  first  tariff  debate,  35;  conven 
tion,  195 

F.RELINGHUYSEN  on  Force  bill,  258;  on 
Compromise  tariff,  325 

FULLER,  of  Massachusetts,  on  tariff  of  1824, 
99,  101 

G. 

GALE  on  First  tariff,  40 

GARNETT,  of  Virginia,  on  tariff  of  1824,  91 

GARRISON,  William  Lloyd,  establishes  the 
Liberator,  193 

GASTON,  William,  of  North  Carolina,  on 
tariff  of  1816,  66,  69,  70 

GEORGIA,  action  of  legislature  and  anti- 
tariff  convention  on  nullification,  233 

GERRY  on  First  tariff,  47,  52 

GILMORE,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  Verplanck 
tariff,  306 

GOODHUE,  of  Massachusetts,  on  First  tariff, 
39,  42,  44,  47,  49 ;  on  tonnage  duty,  56 

GORHAM,  on  tariff  of  1823,  87 ;  on  tariff  of 
1830,  203 

GOVERNMENT,  general,  the,  resolutions  on 
character  and  limitations  of,  offered,  250, 
252,  253 ;  debated,  254,  296-304 ;  laid  on 
table  in  Senate,  304 

GRUNDY,  Felix,  of  Tennessee,  on  Foot  reso 
lution,  184 ;  offers  resolutions  on  nature 
of  general  government  of  United  States 
and  discusses  them,  252-254,  258,  264,  265, 
267,  286,  288 ;  cited  on  Hayne's  speeches 
and  South  Carolina's  position,  330 

H. 

HAILE,  of  Mississippi,  on  tariff  of  1828, 136 
HAMILTON,  Secretary  Alexander,  report  of, 
on  manufactures,  to  Second  Congress,  59  ; 
cited,  287 

HAMILTON,  James,  of  South  Carolina,  on 
tariff  of  1828, 137, 139 ;  urges  nullification 
at  Walterborough,  151 ;  recommends  in 
executive  message  calling  nullification 
convention,  230 ;  president  of  convention 


and  opening  address,  231 ;  his  message 
to  reconvened  legislature,  236 ;  recalls 
convention  and  resigns  presidency,  327 

HARPER,  Chancellor,  drafts  Ordinance  of 
Nullification,  232 

HARRISBURG,  convention  at,  effect  of,  147 

HARTLEY,  advocates  protection,  36,  44 

HAYNE,  Robert  Young,  debates  tariff  of 
1824, 117, 120 ;  that  of  1828,  142,  144,  145 ; 
meetings  at  residence  of,  149 ;  debates 
Foot  resolution  (1830),  158-160,  163-168, 
174-181 ;  speaks  at  Charleston  on  crisis, 
189 ;  reports  Ordinance  of  Nullification, 
231 ;  writes  exposition  of  principles  for 
nullification  convention,  232 ;  chosen 
Governor,  242 ;  his  address,  242 ;  accepts 
presidency  of  South  Carolina  nullifica 
tion  convention,  327 

HEMP,  sectional  lines  on,  42 ;  referred  to, 
85,  102,  134,  143 

HILL  on  Compromise  tariff,  289 

HOFFMAN,  on  tariff  of  1828, 131 ;  on  that  of 
1832,  224 

HOLMES  on  Foot  resolution  (1830),  156, 158, 
184 ;  on  tariff  of  1832,  228  ;  on  Force  bill, 
258 ;  on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to  intro 
duce  tariff  bill,  275;  on  Compromise 
tariff,  276,  288,  289,  325 

HOWARD,  of  Maryland,  on  Verplanck 
tariff,  312 

HUGER,  of  South  Carolina,  on  tariff  of  1816, 
65 

HUNTINGTON  on  First  tariff  bill,  43 

HUSKISSON  cited,  205 

I. 

INGHAM,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  of  1816, 
64,  65 ;  on  Woollens  bill,  125 ;  on  tariff 
bill  of  1828,  131 

INSURRECTION,  Nat  Turner's,  195-198 

IRON,  bar  or  pig,  additional  duty  on,  85; 
in  bolts  and  bars,  99,  111 ;  pig,  127, 128 

ISACKS  on  tariff  of  1824, 103 

J- 

JACKSON,  Andrew,  Presidential  candidate 
in  1824,  from  the  West,  18 ;  his  claims,  19 ; 
his  qualities,  20 ;  nominated  by  Tennessee 
legislature,  21 ;  nominated  with  Calhoun 
as  Vice-President  by  Tammany,  23 ;  has 
plurality  in  electoral  college,  1824-5,  24 ; 
defeated  by  combination  of  Adams  and 
Clay,  24  ;  a  candidate  in  1828, 28 ;  conflict 
with  Clay  over  the  "bargain,"  28  (see 
"Bargain")  ;  his  election  to  Presidency, 
31 ;  character  of  his  inaugural  reception, 
32 ;  breach  in  cabinet  of,  188,  193 ;  nomi 
nated  for  President  by  Democratic  party 
convention,  199;  vigilance  of,  238;  hid 


INDEX. 


339 


proclamation  against  nullifiers,  240 ;  cited 
on  Hayne's  speeches  and  South  Caro 
lina's  position,  330 

JACKSON,  of  Georgia,  on  First  tariff,  45,  47, 
48,  49,  50 ;  appointed  on  first  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  55 ;  speaks  on  tonnage 
duty,  56 

JENIFER,  of  Maryland,  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
308 

JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  speaks,  117 

JOHNSTON,  J.  S.,  of  Louisiana,  on  tariff  of 
1824, 121 ;  on  Foot  resolution  (1830),  185 

K. 

KANE,  of  Illinois,  on  Foot  resolution  (1830) , 
156  ;  on  Clay's  request  for  leave  to  intro 
duce  tariff  bill,  275;  on  Compromise 
tariff,  288 

KING  on  leave  for  Clay's  tariff  bill,  275 ;  on 
Compromise  tariff,  276 

KNIGHT  on  tariff  of  1828, 144 

L. 

LANDS,  public,  note,  333 

LAWRENCE,  of  New  York,  on  First  tariff, 
35,  39,  40,  43,  45,  49,  50,  52 ;  appointed  on 
first  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  55 

LEAD,  141 

LEE  appointed  on  Senate  special  commit 
tee  of  First  Congress  to  consider  tariff 
amendment,  53  ;  speaks  on  tariff,  52 

LEIGH,  Benjamin  Watkins,  commissioner 
to  South  Carolina  from  Virginia  to  ar 
range  for  peace  between  South  Carolina 
and  the  United  States  in  1833,  326 ;  suc 
cessful,  327 

LEIGH,  proposition  of,  in  Virginia  constitu 
tional  convention,  rejected,  155 

LETCHER,  of  Kentucky,  moves  Clay's  Com 
promise  bill  as  substitute  for  Verplanck 
tariff  bill,  321 ;  his  motion  adopted,  321 ; 
speaks  on  his  (Clay)  bill,  322 

LEWIS,  of  Alabama,  on  tariff  of  1832,  222 

LIVERMORE  on  First  tariff,  52 ;  on  tariff  of 
1824,  101 ;  appointed  on  first  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  55 

LIVINGSTON  on  tariff  of  1828, 137, 184 

LODGE,  Henry  Cabot,  quoted  in  note,  326 

LOWNDES,  William,  as  chairman  of  Ways 
and  Means  Committee,  reports  tariff  bill 
of  1816,  63 ;  debates  it,  63,  65,  66,  68,  71 ; 
debates  Baldwin  tariff,  71 ;  cited,  213 

LOWRIE  on  First  tariff,  46 

M. 

MACON,  Nathaniel,  ex-Speaker  and  ex- 
Senator,  cited,  329 

MADISON,  James,  introduces  the  subject  of 
revenue  in  First  Congress,  34 ;  description 


of,  34  (see  Free  trade) ;  leader  there,  34 ; 
speaks  on  tariff,  35,  36-38,  39,  40,  41,  42, 
43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49,  50,  51,  52 ;  on  discrimi 
nation  in  duties,  56 ;  appointed  on  first 
Ways  and  Means  Committee,  55 ;  tempo 
rarily  gives  up  discriminating  duties  and 
advocates  reciprocity,  57 ;  advocates  re 
peal  of  duty  on  distilled  spirits,  58 ;  in 
Third  Congress,  introduces  resolutions 
providing  for  discriminating  duties,  59 

MALLARY  on  tariff  of  1824,  91,  96,  99,  111 ; 
on  Woollens  bill,  123, 124 ;  reports  tariff 
bill  of  1828, 127  ;  debates  it,  127,  128, 136 

MALT  LIQUORS,  taken  up  in  tariff  discus 
sion  of  First  Congress,  40 

MANGUM,  Willie  P.,  notable  speech  on 
tariff  of  1832,  228  ;  debates  various  resolu 
tions',  254  ;  motion  to  postpone  Force  bill 
lost,  256,  264 ;  on  Compromise  tariff,  325 

MANUFACTURES,  Hamilton's  report  on,  59 ; 
petition  for  protection  of,  72 ;  stimulated 
by  tariff  of  1824,  146 

MARTIN,  of  South  Carolina,  on  tariff  of 
1828, 139 

MARTINDALE,  of  New  York,  on  tariff  of 
1824,  96,  97,  98 ;  on  tariff  of  1828,  131 

MARVIN  on  tariff  of  1824,  99 

MCDUFFIE,  George,  discusses  tariff  of  1824, 
91,  94,  111,  113,  114 ;  tariff  of  1828, 137,  138, 
139 ;  reports  tariff  of  1830, 201 ;  debates  it, 
201,  203,  204,  206,  207  ;  replies  to  Appleton, 
213 ;  reports  second  tariff  bill,  215  ;  de 
bates  it,  215-217;  debates  bill  of  1832, 
225-227;  member  of  committee  which 
reports  Ordinance  of  Nullification,  231 ; 
writes  address  to  people  of  United  States 
on  behalf  of  South  Carolina,  232;  on 
Force  bill,  321,  328,  329 ;  on  Clay  tariff,  322 

McKiM  on  tariff  of  1824,  102 

MCKINLEY,  of  Alabama,  on  Foot  resolu 
tion  (1830),  156 

McL-ANE  on  Baldwin  tariff,  75,  76 ;  on 
tariff  of  1824,  96 ;  on  Woollens  bill,  125, 
126 

MERCER  on  tariff  of  1824,  93, 101,  111 

Mercury,  Charleston,  advocates  separation 
and  war,  147 

MILLER  presents  to  Senate  resolution  of 
South  Carolina  legislature,  244  ;  debates 
Force  bill,  256,  264,  268,  269,  286 

MILNOR  on  tariff  of  1816,  66 

MISSOURI,  debates  on  admission  of,  how 
they  affected  public  sentiment,  16 

MITCHELL,  Thomas  R.,  contradicts  Hayne, 
150  ;  discusses  tariff  of  1832,  219 

MOLASSES,  second  article  of  First  tariff, 
debated  in  connection  with  rum,  39; 
reduction  of  duty  on,  50 ;  duty  on,  held  aa 
rod  by  enemies  of  bill  of  1828, 137, 143, 144 


340 


INDEX. 


MONROE,  President  James,  cited,  87  ;  when 
ex-President  accepts  presidency  of  Vir 
ginia  constitutional  convention,  153  ;  re 
signs,  153 

MOORE,  of  Alabama,  on  Force  bill,  276 ;  on 
Compromise  tariff,  276,  289 

MOORE,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  First  tariff 

"   bill,  42 

MOORE  on  tariff  of  1828, 134 

MORRIS  appointed  on  Senate  special  com 
mittee  of  First  Congress  to  consider  tariff 
amendment,  53 

N. 

National  Intelligencer  clashes  with  Rich 
mond  Inquirer,  18 

NATIONAL  REPUBLICANS,  national  conven 
tion  of,  195 

NAT  TURNER,  insurrection  of,  195, 198 

NEW  ENGLAND,  change  of  position  of,  on 
tariff  explained,  142 

NULLIFICATION  (see  chap,  v.,  230) ;  conven 
tion  carried  by  nullifiers,  231 ;  nullifica 
tion  convention  assembled,  proceedings 
of,  231-233;  adjourns  subject  to  recall, 
233 ;  committee  of,  231 ;  Ordinance  of, 
reported,  231 ;  popular  judgment  on,  233 ; 
convention  of,  enacts  test,  replevin,  and 
militia  laws,  237  ;  according  to  Clay  put 
down  by  public  opinion,  272 ;  Ordinance 
of,  rescinded,  327 

O. 

ORDINANCE  OF  1787,  who  was  the  author  of. 
note,  187  (see  Benton,  Hayne,  and  Web 
ster) 

ORDINANCE  OF  NULLIFICATION  reported, 
231;  adopted,  233;  before  Southern  legis 
latures,  243 ;  rescinded,  327 ;  new  ordi 
nances,  327 

OWEN  on  tariff  of  1824,  97 

P. 

J>AGE,  of  Virginia,  presides  in  House  of 
Representatives  of  First  Congress  at  first 
tariff  debate,  34,  52 ;  speaks  on  national 
university,  56 

PARKER  on  First  tariff,  35,  44,  51 
PARRIS,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1828, 142 
PARTIES  in  transition,  15 ;  violence  of,  23, 

30  (see  Democrat  and  Whig) 
Patriot,   Charleston,  contention  of,  as  to 

general  welfare  clause,  18 
PATTON,  of  Virginia,  on  Verplanck  bill,  315 
PEARCE,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  Verplanck 

tariff,  313 

PICKERING  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  68 
PINCKNEY,  H.  L.,  elected  Mayor  of  Charles 
ton,  200 
PITKIN  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  67,  68 


POINDEXTER,  of  Mississippi,  on  tariff  of 
1832,  228 ;  on  Force  bill  and  various  reso 
lutions,  254 ;  offers  resolutions  touching 
President's  military  orders,  261 ;  resolu 
tion  of,  debate  on,  265;   on  Clay's  re 
quest  for  leave  to  introduce  tariff  bill, 
273 ;  on  Force  bill,  287,  288,  289 
POLK,  James  K.,  on  Verplanck  tariff,  308 
PREFACE,  general,  9-11;    to  present  vol 
ume,  13 
PRESS,  how  aligned   on   protection   and 

State  rights,  18 

PROCLAMATION,  President  Jackson's,  240 
PROTECTION  suggested  by  Fitzsimons,  36, 
37,  38 ;  denounced,  75 ;  Mallary's  two 
days'  defence  of,  127 ;  revival  of,  146 ; 
opposition  to,  146;  favored  by  North 
Carolina  Senate,  148 ;  strong  in  Virginia, 
148 ;  whether  abandoned  after  1842  by 
adoption  of  Clay  Compromise,  294 

Q. 

QUINCY,  Josiah,  cited  by  Hayne  in  reply 
to  Webster,  167 

R. 

RANDOLPH,  John,  heads  State  rights  reac 
tionary  movement,  29 ;  speaks,  70,  71 ;  on 
tariff  of  1824,  111,  113 

REALIGNMENT  on  tariff  question,  126 

REED,  of  Massachusetts,  on  tariff  of  1824, 
102,  111 ;  on  that  of  1828,  134 ;  on  Ver 
planck  tariff,  308 

REPLY  TO  HAYNE,  Webster's,  168  (see  Web 
ster) 

REVENUE,  under  Articles  of  Confederation 
vexatious  subject,  33 ;  power  of  Congress 
under  new  Constitution  concerning 
which,  34;  first  question  debated  in 
committee  of  whole,  First  Congress,  34 ; 
discussed,  35-72;  temporary  system  of, 
advocated  by  Madison,  35 ;  alignment  of 
sections  on  in  first  debate,  38  (see  Tariff 
and  various  items  of) ;  additional  revenue 
bill  of  First  Congress,  lost,  56 ;  war  tariff 
of  1812,  61 ;  tariff  bill  of  1816  reported,  63 ; 
passed,  71 ;  supplementary  act  passed,  71 ; 
tariff  bill  of  1820  (Baldwin)  defeated  in 
Senate,  82 ;  tariff  of  1823  defeated,  85 ;  tariff 
of  1824  reported,  88 ;  debated  in  House, 
89-115  ;  in  Senate,  116-120 ;  becomes  law, 
122 ;  Woollens  bill  reported,  122 ;  debated 
in  House,  123-125 ;  considered  in  Senate, 
125, 126 ;  defeated,  126 ;  tariff  bill  of  1828 
reported,  127  ;  debated  in  House,  127-140 ; 
passes  House,  140 ;  debated  in  Senate, 
141-145 ;  passes  Semite  and  becomes  law, 
145 ;  tariff  bill  of  1830  reported,  201 ;  de 
bated  in  House,  201-208;  passes  House, 
208  ;  defeated  in  Senate,  208  ;  resolutions 


INDEX. 


341 


of  Bouldin  and  Dearborn,  212;  second 
McDuffie  tariff  reported,  215;  debated, 
215-218;  defeated,  218;  tariff  of  1832 
(Treasury)  reported,  215 ;  Stewart's  sub 
stitute  for,  218;  bill  debated  in  House, 
217-227;  passes  House,  227;  debated  in 
Senate,  227-229;  passes  Senate  and  be 
comes  law,  229;  Compromise  tariff  of 
1833,  270 ;  debated,  270  ;  Webster's  resolu 
tions  on,  275;  motion  to  table  Compro 
mise  bill  negatived,  276;  Compromise 
bill  referred  to  select  committee,  276 ; 
reported,  288;  Verplanck  tariff  bill  re 
ported,  304;  debated,  305;  reported  to 
House  from  committee  of  whole,  316 ; 
debated,  316;  motions  concerning,  de 
feated  or  withdrawn,  316 ;  changes  in, 
317,  318 ;  Clay's  Compromise  adopted  as 
substitute  for  Verplanck  bill,  321,  and 
passes  House  of  Representatives,  322 ; 
passes  Senate,  324,  325;  becomes  a  law, 
326 

RITES,  William  C,,  debates  Force  bill,  277- 
279 

ROBBINS,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  Foot  resolu 
tion  (1830),  185 

ROOT,  of  New  York,  on  tariff  of  1816,  67,  68  ; 
on  that  of  1832,  224  ;  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
307 

Ross  on  tariff  of  1816,  67 ;  on  that  of  1824, 
101 

ROWAN,  of  Kentucky,  143, 184 

RUM,  first  article  considered  in  First  tariff 
debate,  39 ;  great  source  of  sectional  dis 
agreement,  46 

S. 

SALT,  alarms  excited  as  to  duty  on,  43 ;  bill 
to  reduce  special  duties  on,  passed  Sen 
ate,  126 ;  general  bill  to  reduce  duty  on, 
laid  on  table,  127 ;  bill  to  reduce,  passed 
House,  209 ;  Benton's  efforts  regarding 
reduction  unavailing  in  Senate,  210; 
angry  debate  on,  211 

SCOTT  on  tariff,  43 

SCOTT,  General  Winfield,  commands  at 
Charleston,  239 

SECESSION,  rightful  remedy  for  ills  com 
plained  of  by  States,  not  nullification, 
201 ;  right  of,  268 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY,  report  of, 
212 

SEMINOLES,  affair  of,  Jackson  and  Calhoun, 
192 

SENATE,  power  of,  to  originate  revenue 
measures,  293 

SHEPARD,  William  B.,  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
312 

SHEFFEY  on  tariff  of  1816,  65 


SHERMAN,  on  First  tariff,  39 ;  on  tonnage 
duty,  56 

SILSBEE,  of  Massachusetts,  on  Baldwin 
tariff,  76 ;  on  Compromise  tariff,  288,  325 

SINNICKSON  on  First  tariff,  52 

SLAVES,  Virginia  proposes  a  tax  on  im 
ported,  51 ;  property  in,  and  representa 
tion  of,  153 

SMITH,  of  Maryland,  presents  to  House  pe 
tition  on  decline  of  trade,  38  ;  speaks  on 
First  tariff,  40, 43,  54  ;  on  tariff  of  1816, 63, 
65 ;  appointed  on  first  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  55  ;  on  tariff  of  1824, 120 ;  on 
that  of  1828,  142,  143,  144 

SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  appointed  on 
first  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  55; 
speaks  on  tonnage  duties,  56 ;  on  Foot 
resolution  (1830),  184;  letter  of,  against 
nullification,  190 ;  on  Compromise  tariff, 
288,  289,  291 

SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  on  tariff  bill  of  1823, 86 

SOUTHAMPTON  County,  Virginia,  insurrec 
tion  in,  195-198  (see  Nat  Turner) 

SOUTH  CAROLINA,  meetings  in,  condemn 
tariff  of  1828,  146;  focus  of  excitement 
over  tariff,  149  ;  legislature  of,  meets  and 
considers  crisis,  151;  protest  of,  152; 
States  in  sympathy  with,  or  opposed  to, 
191 ;  address  of  Congressional  delegation 
of,  199 ;  legislature  of,  calls  convention, 
230;  convention  assembles,  231,  and 
adopts  Nullification  Ordinance,  233; 
Union  party  in,  its  course  on  convention 
issue,  230 ;  legislature  of,  again  convenes, 
236 ;  convention  of,  enacts  replevin  law, 
237  ;  military  armament  in,  238 ;  resolu 
tions  of  legislature  of,  presented  to 
United  States  Senate,  244 ;  rescinds  her 
Ordinance  of  Nullification,  327 

SOUTHERN  INTERESTS  in  tariff,  142  (see 
Hayne) 

SOUTHERN  SPEAKERS,  most  prominent 
fault  of,  109 

SPAIGHT,  of  North  Carolina,  on  repeal  of 
duty  on  salt,  211 

SPIRITS,  distilled,  act  concerning,  repealed, 
and  new  act  passed,  58 ;  debates  in  1789 
and  1824  opened  with  subject  of,  91 ;  ad 
ditional  duty  on,  135 

SPRAGUE,  of  Maine,  on  Clay's  request  for 
leave  to  introduce  tariff  compromise, 
274  ;  on  nature  of  the  government,  301 ; 
on  tariff  compromise,  325 

SPRAGUE,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  tariff  of  1828, 
142,  184, 186 

STANBERRY,  of  Ohio,  on  tariff  of  1828, 133 

STEEL  described  as  in  infancy  of  manu 
facture,  41 

STEVENSON  on  tariff,  101, 128 


342 


INDEX. 


STEWART,  on  tariff  of  1824,  101,  111;  on 
Woollens  bill,  124;  on  tariff  of  1828, 137, 
138 ;  presents  substitute  for  tariff  bill  of 
1832,  218 ;  debates  bill,  218 ;  debates  Ver- 
planck  tariff,  318 

STRONG  on  tariff  of  1816,  63 

SUGAR  considered  in  First  tariff  debate,  40 

SUTHERLAND,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  tariff  of 
1832,  222 

T. 

TAMMANY,  Society  of,  endorses  President 
Jackson  against  nullification,  234 

TARIFF,  the,  of  1789;  the  first,  33-55  (see 
Revenue) ;  debate  on,  begins,  34 ;  passes 
House  of  Representatives,  53 ;  passes  Sen 
ate  with  amendments,  53 ;  House  agrees 
to  certain  amendments,  54 ;  becomes  a 
law,  55  (see  Discrimination,  Rum,  Mo 
lasses,  Wines,  Sugar,  Candles,  Malt 
Liquors,  and  other  titles  in  this  index)  ; 
additional  revenue  bill,  second  session 
of  First  Congress  lost,  56 ;  war  tariff  of 
1812,  61 ;  tariff  of  1816  reported,  63 ;  passed, 
71 ;  supplementary  act  passes,  71 ;  Bald 
win  tariff  of  1820  reported,  73 ;  defeated, 
82 ;  tariff  of  1823  defeated,  85 ;  tariff  of 
1824  reported,  88 ;  debated  in  House,  89- 
115;  passes  Senate,  120;  becomes  law, 
122 ;  Woollens  bill  reported,  122 ;  debated 
in  House,  123-125  ;  considered  in  Senate, 
125,  126 ;  defeated,  126 ;  bill  of  1828  re 
ported,  127 ;  debated  in  House,  127-140 ; 
passes  House,  140;  debated  in  Senate, 
141-145 ;  passes  Senate  and  becomes  law, 
145 ;  tariff  of  1828  presented  by  a  Georgia 
jury,  148 ;  convention  of  the  friends  of, 
195 ;  tariff  bill  of  1830  reported,  201 ;  de 
bated  in  House,  201-208;  defeated  in 
Senate,  208 ;  resolutions  of  Bouldin  and 
Dearborn,  212;  second  McDuffie  tariff 
bill  reported,  215 ;  debated,  215-218 ;  de 
feated,  218 ;  tariff  of  1832  reported,  215 ; 
Stewart's  substitute  for,  218 ;  bill  debated, 
217-227;  passes  House,  227;  debated  in 
Senate,  227-229;  passes  Senate  and  be 
comes  law,  229 ;  Clay's  Compromise  in 
troduced  and  debated,  270;  Webster's 
resolutions  on,  275 ;  motion  to  table  tariff 
compromise  tabled,  276;  Compromise 
bill  referred  to  select  committee,  276 ; 
reported,  288;  Verplanck  tariff  bill  re 
ported,  304 ;  debated,  305 ;  reported  from 
committee  of  whole,  316;  motions  con 
cerning,  lost  or  withdrawn,  316 ;  changes 
in,  317,  318;  Clay's  Compromise  bill 
adopted  as  substitute  for,  321 ;  and  passes 
House,  322 ;  and  passes  Senate,  324,  325  ; 
becomes  a  law,  325 


TATTNALL  on  tariff  of  1823,  86 

TAYLOR,  John,  "of  Caroline,"  on  tariff  of 

1824,  118 
TAZEWELL,  of  Virginia,  on  tariff  of  1828, 

143 
TEAS,  bill  reducing  duties  on,  failed  in 

House,   127    (see   Wines    and    Coffee) ; 

passed,  202,  211 

TEXAS,  acquisition  of,  mooted,  152 
THACHER  on  First  tariff,  39 
THOMPSON,  of  Georgia,  on  tariff  of  1828, 139 ; 

on  salt  duty,  212 
TOD,  of  Pennsylvania,  reports  and  debates 

tariff  bill  of  1823, 84, 85 ;  reports  tariff  bill 

of  1824,  88 ;  debates  it,  89,  90,  91,  93,  94, 

101,  102 

TOMLINSON  on  tariff  of  1824,  92 
TONNAGE,  duty  on,  considered,  36 ;  South 

for  low,  51 ;  House  refuses  to  reduce,  51 ; 

bill  reported  and  passed  after  amend 
ment,  55 ;  subject  of,  renewed,  56 ;  a  new 

bill  passed,  57 
TRACY,  of  New  York,  on  tariff  of  1824,  91, 

92 

TRIMBLE  speaks,  115 
TUCKER,  of  South  Carolina,  urges  delay  in 

consideration  of  tariff  of  First  Congress, 

36 ;  on  that  tariff,  40,  41,  42,  43,  49 ;  on 

salt  duty,  212 
TYLER,    John,    speaks    against    Baldwin 

tariff ;  on  that  of  1832, 227 ;  on  Force  bill, 

258,  260,  264,  265 ;  on  Compromise  tariff, 

288 

U. 

UDREE  on  tariff  of  1824,  111 
UNION,  party  of,  in  South  Carolina,  op 
posed  to  tariff,  147 ;  meetings  of,  200 


V. 

VALUATION,  home,  test  vote  of,  on  Clay 
Compromise  tariff,  292 

VAN  BUREN,  Martin,  Senator  from  New 
York,  supports  Jackson  in  1828,  29 

VAN  WYCK  on  tariff  of  1823,  88        * 

VERPLANCK  reports  tariff  bill,  304 

VINING  appointed  on  first  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  55 

VINTON  on  Verplanck  tariff,  309 

VIRGINIA,  legislature  of,  condemns  tariff 
of  1828,  146;  constitutional  convention 
of,  considers  slavery,  153 ;  adopts  Article 
III  as  compromise  proposition,  155  ;  legis 
lature  of,  holds  emancipation  debate, 
198 ;  arranges,  by  commissioner  to  South 
Carolina,  for  peace,  326 

VON  HOLST,  quoted,  326,  in  note 


INDEX. 


343 


w. 

WADSWORTH,  on  First  tariff,  47 ;  appointed 
on  first  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  55 

WARD,  of  Massachusetts,  on  tariff  of  1816, 
67,68 

WARD,  of  New  York,  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
314 

WAYNE,  of  Georgia,  on  tariff  of  1830,  205 

WAYS  AND  MEANS,  Committee  of,  first  ap 
pointed,  55 ;  members  of,  55 

WEBSTER,  Daniel,  debates  tariff  of  1816,  66, 
67,  68 ;  tariff  of  1824,  99,  102,  103, 107-109, 
111 ;  votes  for  Woollens  bill,  125  ;  debates 
tariff  of  1828,  142,  143 ;  Foot  resolution 
(1830),  160-163,  168-174  (famous  reply  to 
Hayne),  181 ;  Force  bill  and  various  reso 
lutions,  254, 264 ;  speaks  on  Clay's  request 
for  leave  to  introduce  tariff  compromise, 
274  ;  on  resolutions  on  tariff,  275 ;  which 
were  tabled,  277  ;  on  Force  bill,  282-286  ; 
on  Compromise  tariff,  290,  293,  294,  295, 
325 ;  on  nature  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  303 

WHIGS,  party  of,  origin,  15  ;  not  lineal  suc 
cessor  of  Federal  party,  16 

W'HISKEY,  Benton's  idea  of  "healthful- 
ness"  of,  141 

WHITE,  of  Louisiana,  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
308 

WHITE,  of  Virginia,  on  First  tariff,  35,  36, 52 

WHITMAN,  of  Massachusetts,  on  Baldwin 
tariff,  76 

WICK.LIFFE,  of  Kentucky,  on  tariff  of  1824, 
91 


WILDE,  of  Georgia,  on  tariff  of  1816,  65 ;  on 
that  of  1832,  221 ;  on  Verplanck  tariff, 
309 

WILKINS  supports  Force  bill,  256,  257 

WILLIAMSON,  of  North  Carolina,  on  ton 
nage  duty,  56 

WINES  considered  in  First  tariff,  40,  45; 
bill  to  reduce  duty  on,  failed  in  House 
after  passing  Senate,  127 

WOODBURY,  of  New  Hampshire,  on  tariff 
of  1828,  144,  184 

WOOL,  unmanufactured,  reduced  duty  on, 
119  ;  raw,  value  of,  130,  144 

WOOL-GROWERS,  charge  against,  132 

WOOLLENS,  considered  in  Fourteenth  Con 
gress,  63,  68;  referred  to,  85;  effort  to 
lower  proposed  duty  on,  failed  in  House, 
92 ;  House  receded  on,  122 ;  minima  of, 
debated,  and  principle  adopted  in  House, 
136 ;  Senate  changes  specific  to  ad  valo 
rem  duty,  141 

WOOLLENS  BILL,  the,  reported,  122;  de 
bated,  }23-125;  considered  in  Senate, 
125, 126 ;  defeated  by  casting  vote  of  Vice- 
President  Calhoun,  126 

WRIGHT,  of  New  York,  on  tariff  of  1828, 
129, 130, 136 ;  on  Compromise  tariff,  290, 
325 

WRIGHT,  of  Ohio,  speaks,  138 


Y. 

YEAS  AND  NAYS  (see  Ayes  and  Noes) 
YOUNG  on  tariff  of  1830,  205 


THE    END. 


14  DAY  USE  D 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due.  — 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall.  f> 

LD    MAH3  172  -2PM  15 


-.,  b    } 
-    tofi 


LD21A-40m-3,'72 
(Qll73slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


UO 


LD  21A-60m-10,'65 
(F7763slO)476B 


O  7M  OO 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


